Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 3 courts 1864–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Carson Mobilehome Park Owners' Ass'n v. City of Carsongreen2 sentences2018(See San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1070 , 1079, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 .) Applicable Law "An unconstitutional delegation of authority occurs only when a legislative body (1) leaves the resolution of fundamental policy issues to others or (2) fails to provide adequate direction for the implementation of that policy." ( Carson Mobilehome Park Owners' Assn. v. City of Carson (1983) 35 Cal.3d 184 , 190, 197 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 672 P.2d 1297 ( Carson Mobilehome ).) As our Supreme Court recently recounted, where the fundamental policy issues h 2018(See San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1070 , 1079, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 .) Applicable Law "An unconstitutional delegation of authority occurs only when a legislative body (1) leaves the resolution of fundamental policy issues to others or (2) fails to provide adequate direction for the implementation of that policy." ( Carson Mobilehome Park Owners' Assn. v. City of Carson (1983) 35 Cal.3d 184 , 190, 197 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 672 P.2d 1297 ( Carson Mobilehome ).) As our Supreme Court recently recounted, where the fundamental policy issues h | 1 | 2 |
Flatley v. Maurogreen1 sentence2021“In the first step, the court is tasked with determining whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one ‘arising from protected activity.’ ” (Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435, 443 (Gerbosi).) “[T]he moving defendant bears the burden of identifying all allegations of protected activity, and the claims for relief supported by them.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 (Baral).) 13 “ ‘The only means specified in section 425.16 by which a moving defendant can satisfy the [“arising from”] requirement is to | 1 | 1 |
Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLPgreen1 sentence2021“In the first step, the court is tasked with determining whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one ‘arising from protected activity.’ ” (Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435, 443 (Gerbosi).) “[T]he moving defendant bears the burden of identifying all allegations of protected activity, and the claims for relief supported by them.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 (Baral).) 13 “ ‘The only means specified in section 425.16 by which a moving defendant can satisfy the [“arising from”] requirement is to | 1 | 1 |
Baral v. Schnittgreen1 sentence2021“In the first step, the court is tasked with determining whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one ‘arising from protected activity.’ ” (Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435, 443 (Gerbosi).) “[T]he moving defendant bears the burden of identifying all allegations of protected activity, and the claims for relief supported by them.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 (Baral).) 13 “ ‘The only means specified in section 425.16 by which a moving defendant can satisfy the [“arising from”] requirement is to | 1 | 1 |
Robings v. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancygreen2 sentences2015Code, § 6502, italics added.) “The test for compliance with the common powers rule is whether each of the agency’s members had the power to perform the contested acts — whether each had the power ‘to do unilaterally what was actually done.’ ” (Robings v. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 952, 962 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 828 ].) Crawley has not shown any basis to dispute that the Authority’s member agencies — Alameda County, each city within Alameda County, and the Castro Valley and Oro Lomo Sanitary Districts — are each authorized to adopt such a fee. (§§ 5471, subd. (a) [“an 2015Code, § 6502, italics added.) “The test for compliance with the common powers rule is whether each of the agency’s members had the power to perform the contested acts — whether each had the power ‘to do unilaterally what was actually done.’ ” (Robings v. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 952, 962 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 828 ].) Crawley has not shown any basis to dispute that the Authority’s member agencies — Alameda County, each city within Alameda County, and the Castro Valley and Oro Lomo Sanitary Districts — are each authorized to adopt such a fee. (§§ 5471, subd. (a) [“an | 1 | 1 |
Beckwith v. County of Stanislausgreen2 sentences2010The test for compliance with the common powers rule is whether each of the agency’s members had the power to perform the contested acts—whether each had the power “to do unilaterally what was actually done.” (Beckwith v. County of Stanislaus (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 40, 48 [ 345 P.2d 363 ].) The issue raised by appellants’ challenge under the common powers rule therefore is whether the Conservancy has the power to grant funds to the Conservation Authority, a joint powers agency of which it is a member. *963 We answer this question in the affirmative. 2010The test for compliance with the common powers rule is whether each of the agency’s members had the power to perform the contested acts—whether each had the power “to do unilaterally what was actually done.” (Beckwith v. County of Stanislaus (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 40, 48 [ 345 P.2d 363 ].) The issue raised by appellants’ challenge under the common powers rule therefore is whether the Conservancy has the power to grant funds to the Conservation Authority, a joint powers agency of which it is a member. *963 We answer this question in the affirmative. | 1 | 1 |
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.green2 sentences2007In considering the standard of review by a trial court of whether an arbitrator’s remedy exceeded1 the arbitrator’s powers in violation of section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(4), the Supreme Court said that “unless expressly restricted by the agreement of the parties [arbitrators] enjoy the authority to fashion relief they consider just and fair under the circumstances existing at the time of arbitration, so long as the remedy may be rationally derived from the contract and the breach." (Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 383 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 ] {In 2007In considering the standard of review by a trial court of whether an arbitrator’s remedy exceeded1 the arbitrator’s powers in violation of section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(4), the Supreme Court said that “unless expressly restricted by the agreement of the parties [arbitrators] enjoy the authority to fashion relief they consider just and fair under the circumstances existing at the time of arbitration, so long as the remedy may be rationally derived from the contract and the breach." (Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 383 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 ] {In | 1 | 1 |
Alford v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2006(Alford v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 560, 564 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 222 ].) A. Separation of powers The California Constitution establishes a system of state government in which governmental power is divided among three coequal branches: the legislative branch (Cal. Const., art. 2006(Alford v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 560, 564 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 222 ].) A. Separation of powers The California Constitution establishes a system of state government in which governmental power is divided among three coequal branches: the legislative branch (Cal. Const., art. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
San Francisco Unified School District v. City & County of San Francisco
green
2 sentences2018(See San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1070 , 1079, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 .) Applicable Law "An unconstitutional delegation of authority occurs only when a legislative body (1) leaves the resolution of fundamental policy issues to others or (2) fails to provide adequate direction for the implementation of that policy." ( Carson Mobilehome Park Owners' Assn. v. City of Carson (1983) 35 Cal.3d 184 , 190, 197 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 672 P.2d 1297 ( Carson Mobilehome ).) As our Supreme Court recently recounted, where the fundamental policy issues h 2018(See San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1070 , 1079, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 .) Applicable Law "An unconstitutional delegation of authority occurs only when a legislative body (1) leaves the resolution of fundamental policy issues to others or (2) fails to provide adequate direction for the implementation of that policy." ( Carson Mobilehome Park Owners' Assn. v. City of Carson (1983) 35 Cal.3d 184 , 190, 197 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 672 P.2d 1297 ( Carson Mobilehome ).) As our Supreme Court recently recounted, where the fundamental policy issues h | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Solberg v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2018(See Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182 , 194-198, 137 Cal.Rptr. 460 , 561 P.2d 1148 [rejecting "as applied" challenge to statute alleged to violate the doctrine of separate of powers].) Although the right allegedly violated is not specific to appellants-being the general prohibition on the delegation of authority-the facts alleged in support of the claim that such a violation occurred are specific to appellants in this case. 2018(See Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182 , 194-198, 137 Cal.Rptr. 460 , 561 P.2d 1148 [rejecting "as applied" challenge to statute alleged to violate the doctrine of separate of powers].) Although the right allegedly violated is not specific to appellants-being the general prohibition on the delegation of authority-the facts alleged in support of the claim that such a violation occurred are specific to appellants in this case. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.
green
1 sentence2025“Both trial and appellate courts may properly take judicial notice of a party’s earlier pleadings and positions as well as established facts from both the same case and other cases.” (Cantu v. Resolution Trust 20 Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 877 , italics omitted.) In any event, the court did not rely on this to determine that these accounts were not in the equalizing payment and were to be divided by a qualified domestic relations order. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021“In the first step, the court is tasked with determining whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one ‘arising from protected activity.’ ” (Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435, 443 (Gerbosi).) “[T]he moving defendant bears the burden of identifying all allegations of protected activity, and the claims for relief supported by them.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 (Baral).) 13 “ ‘The only means specified in section 425.16 by which a moving defendant can satisfy the [“arising from”] requirement is to | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.
green
2 sentences2021“In the first step, the court is tasked with determining whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one ‘arising from protected activity.’ ” (Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435, 443 (Gerbosi).) “[T]he moving defendant bears the burden of identifying all allegations of protected activity, and the claims for relief supported by them.” (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396 (Baral).) 13 “ ‘The only means specified in section 425.16 by which a moving defendant can satisfy the [“arising from”] requirement is to 2021(Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1063 .) Powers’s brief in support of his motion failed to invoke any of these categories. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board
green
2 sentences2018(See San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1070 , 1079, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 .) Applicable Law "An unconstitutional delegation of authority occurs only when a legislative body (1) leaves the resolution of fundamental policy issues to others or (2) fails to provide adequate direction for the implementation of that policy." ( Carson Mobilehome Park Owners' Assn. v. City of Carson (1983) 35 Cal.3d 184 , 190, 197 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 672 P.2d 1297 ( Carson Mobilehome ).) As our Supreme Court recently recounted, where the fundamental policy issues h 2018(See San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1070 , 1079, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 .) Applicable Law "An unconstitutional delegation of authority occurs only when a legislative body (1) leaves the resolution of fundamental policy issues to others or (2) fails to provide adequate direction for the implementation of that policy." ( Carson Mobilehome Park Owners' Assn. v. City of Carson (1983) 35 Cal.3d 184 , 190, 197 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 672 P.2d 1297 ( Carson Mobilehome ).) As our Supreme Court recently recounted, where the fundamental policy issues h | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Wright
green
2 sentences2018(See San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1070 , 1079, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 .) Applicable Law "An unconstitutional delegation of authority occurs only when a legislative body (1) leaves the resolution of fundamental policy issues to others or (2) fails to provide adequate direction for the implementation of that policy." ( Carson Mobilehome Park Owners' Assn. v. City of Carson (1983) 35 Cal.3d 184 , 190, 197 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 672 P.2d 1297 ( Carson Mobilehome ).) As our Supreme Court recently recounted, where the fundamental policy issues h 2018(See San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1070 , 1079, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 .) Applicable Law "An unconstitutional delegation of authority occurs only when a legislative body (1) leaves the resolution of fundamental policy issues to others or (2) fails to provide adequate direction for the implementation of that policy." ( Carson Mobilehome Park Owners' Assn. v. City of Carson (1983) 35 Cal.3d 184 , 190, 197 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 672 P.2d 1297 ( Carson Mobilehome ).) As our Supreme Court recently recounted, where the fundamental policy issues h | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kugler v. Yocum
red
2 sentences2018(See San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1070 , 1079, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 .) Applicable Law "An unconstitutional delegation of authority occurs only when a legislative body (1) leaves the resolution of fundamental policy issues to others or (2) fails to provide adequate direction for the implementation of that policy." ( Carson Mobilehome Park Owners' Assn. v. City of Carson (1983) 35 Cal.3d 184 , 190, 197 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 672 P.2d 1297 ( Carson Mobilehome ).) As our Supreme Court recently recounted, where the fundamental policy issues h 2018(See San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1070 , 1079, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 502 .) Applicable Law "An unconstitutional delegation of authority occurs only when a legislative body (1) leaves the resolution of fundamental policy issues to others or (2) fails to provide adequate direction for the implementation of that policy." ( Carson Mobilehome Park Owners' Assn. v. City of Carson (1983) 35 Cal.3d 184 , 190, 197 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 672 P.2d 1297 ( Carson Mobilehome ).) As our Supreme Court recently recounted, where the fundamental policy issues h | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Stow v. Wyse
green
1 sentence1864(Beals v. Allen, 18 John. 363 ; Hubbard v. Elmer, 7 Wend. 446;,Rossiter v. Rossiter, 8 Wend. 494 ; North River Bank v. Aymar, 3 Hill, 263 ; Cox v. Robinson, 2 Stew. and Porter, 91; Stow v. Wise, 7 Conn. 214 .) The power of attorney under consideration authorizes Casimero to take all the necessary steps and do all necessary things to secure the right, title, and claim of Mrs. Valencia to the ranch therein mentioned, and to employ lawyers, gather testimony, and to provide the necessary expenses for the same. | 1 | 1864–1864 |
Hubbard v. Elmer
neutral
1 sentence1864(Beals v. Allen, 18 John. 363 ; Hubbard v. Elmer, 7 Wend. 446;,Rossiter v. Rossiter, 8 Wend. 494 ; North River Bank v. Aymar, 3 Hill, 263 ; Cox v. Robinson, 2 Stew. and Porter, 91; Stow v. Wise, 7 Conn. 214 .) The power of attorney under consideration authorizes Casimero to take all the necessary steps and do all necessary things to secure the right, title, and claim of Mrs. Valencia to the ranch therein mentioned, and to employ lawyers, gather testimony, and to provide the necessary expenses for the same. | 1 | 1864–1864 |
Rossiter v. Rossiter
green
1 sentence1864(Beals v. Allen, 18 John. 363 ; Hubbard v. Elmer, 7 Wend. 446;,Rossiter v. Rossiter, 8 Wend. 494 ; North River Bank v. Aymar, 3 Hill, 263 ; Cox v. Robinson, 2 Stew. and Porter, 91; Stow v. Wise, 7 Conn. 214 .) The power of attorney under consideration authorizes Casimero to take all the necessary steps and do all necessary things to secure the right, title, and claim of Mrs. Valencia to the ranch therein mentioned, and to employ lawyers, gather testimony, and to provide the necessary expenses for the same. | 1 | 1864–1864 |
Beals v. Allen
neutral
1 sentence1864(Beals v. Allen, 18 John. 363 ; Hubbard v. Elmer, 7 Wend. 446;,Rossiter v. Rossiter, 8 Wend. 494 ; North River Bank v. Aymar, 3 Hill, 263 ; Cox v. Robinson, 2 Stew. and Porter, 91; Stow v. Wise, 7 Conn. 214 .) The power of attorney under consideration authorizes Casimero to take all the necessary steps and do all necessary things to secure the right, title, and claim of Mrs. Valencia to the ranch therein mentioned, and to employ lawyers, gather testimony, and to provide the necessary expenses for the same. | 1 | 1864–1864 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.