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.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1926–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
CKE Restaurants, Inc. v. Mooregreen1 sentence2026(Graffiti Protective Coating, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 1215 ; accord, Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 243 , 264.) Unlike the complaint in CKE Restaurants Inc. v. Moore (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 262 , the cross-complaint does not directly challenge the merits of the notices of violation. | 1 | 1 |
Associated General Contractors etc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relationsgreen1 sentence2026(Graffiti Protective Coating, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 1215 ; accord, Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 243 , 264.) Unlike the complaint in CKE Restaurants Inc. v. Moore (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 262 , the cross-complaint does not directly challenge the merits of the notices of violation. | 1 | 1 |
Maria P. v. Rilesgreen1 sentence2021(Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296 [failure to furnish an adequate record requires that the claim be resolved against the party raising the contention]; Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187 [“prejudicial error must be affirmatively shown”].) Campbell’s argument that she should have received separate service of process in connection with her vehicles parked at the property fails because as we have explained, the action was against the property, not her as an individual. | 1 | 1 |
Foust v. San Jose Construction Co.green1 sentence2021(Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296 [failure to furnish an adequate record requires that the claim be resolved against the party raising the contention]; Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187 [“prejudicial error must be affirmatively shown”].) Campbell’s argument that she should have received separate service of process in connection with her vehicles parked at the property fails because as we have explained, the action was against the property, not her as an individual. | 1 | 1 |
PEOPLE, CAL. REG. WAT. QUALITY CTRL. BD. v. Barrygreen1 sentence2020Quality Control Bd. v. Barry (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 158, 174, fn. 12 .) The Construction General Permit refers to the "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002," which is discussed in more detail post. 3 compliance obligations, but Appellants state that Baldwin & Sons, LLC was not an owner, contractor, or permittee in relation to the project. 2 The notices of violation identify alleged Construction General Permit violations, which in | 1 | 1 |
Brovelli v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2020(Brovelli, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 529 [requests cannot be "too indefinite"].) 17 Among other things, the notices of violation allege violations of state and federal law resulting from the following: failure to comply with discharge prohibitions for construction activity; failure to comply with conditions of the Construction General Permit; failure to mitigate discharges to the environment; failure to properly operate and maintain BMPs to achieve permit compliance; failure to implement adequate erosion and runoff controls; and failure to include information in the stormwater pollution preventio 2020(Brovelli, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 529 .) 2. | 1 | 1 |
Millan v. Restaurant Enterprises Group, Inc.green2 sentences2020Code, § 13323 [specifying procedures for imposing administrative civil liability]; 33 U.S.C. § 1319 [EPA's concurrent authority to enforce NPDES permits issued by states]; Construction General Permit, at p. 22 [permit noncompliance violates state and federal water quality laws and is grounds for an enforcement action]; 40 C.F.R. § 122.41 [any NPDES "permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action"].) The notices of violation arising from the Portola development establish that the State Board is investigating—and needs to enforce—precise 2020Code, § 13323 [specifying procedures for imposing administrative civil liability]; 33 U.S.C. § 1319 [EPA's concurrent authority to enforce NPDES permits issued by states]; Construction General Permit, at p. 22 [permit noncompliance violates state and federal water quality laws and is grounds for an enforcement action]; 40 C.F.R. § 122.41 [any NPDES "permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action"].) The notices of violation arising from the Portola development establish that the State Board is investigating—and needs to enforce—precise | 1 | 1 |
Coordinated Construction, Inc. v. Canoga Big" A," Inc.green2 sentences1972If proof of service of the petition and a requisite notice can be established, then the ruling of the court in Coordinated Construction, Inc. v. Canoga Big “A,” Inc. (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 313, 315-318 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 749 ] can be invoked. 1972If proof of service of the petition and a requisite notice can be established, then the ruling of the court in Coordinated Construction, Inc. v. Canoga Big “A,” Inc. (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 313, 315-318 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 749 ] can be invoked. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Santa Clara Waste Water Co. v. Cnty. of Ventura Envtl. Health Div.
green
1 sentence2026(Id., at p. 271 [finding the complaint arose from protected regulatory activity when it “directly challenged the merits of” the violation notice “by referring to and quoting from” the notice].) It is also different from the petition in Santa Clara Waste Water Co. v. County of Ventura Environmental Health Division (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1082 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Julius Goldman's Egg City v. Air Pollution Control District
neutral
2 sentences2026At the meeting, district’s representatives did not address the notices of violation but instead stated an independent contractor such as Diamond was not entitled to agricultural exemptions under Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb (1949) 337 U.S. 755 (Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co.) and Julius Goldman’s Egg City v. Air Pollution Control Dist. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 741 (Julius Goldman’s Egg City). 2026At the meeting, district’s representatives did not address the notices of violation but instead stated an independent contractor such as Diamond was not entitled to agricultural exemptions under Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb (1949) 337 U.S. 755 (Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co.) and Julius Goldman’s Egg City v. Air Pollution Control Dist. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 741 (Julius Goldman’s Egg City). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb
green
2 sentences2026At the meeting, district’s representatives did not address the notices of violation but instead stated an independent contractor such as Diamond was not entitled to agricultural exemptions under Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb (1949) 337 U.S. 755 (Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co.) and Julius Goldman’s Egg City v. Air Pollution Control Dist. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 741 (Julius Goldman’s Egg City). 2026At the meeting, district’s representatives did not address the notices of violation but instead stated an independent contractor such as Diamond was not entitled to agricultural exemptions under Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb (1949) 337 U.S. 755 (Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co.) and Julius Goldman’s Egg City v. Air Pollution Control Dist. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 741 (Julius Goldman’s Egg City). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera
green
1 sentence2026(Graffiti Protective Coating, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 1215 ; accord, Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 243 , 264.) Unlike the complaint in CKE Restaurants Inc. v. Moore (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 262 , the cross-complaint does not directly challenge the merits of the notices of violation. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Craib v. Bulmash
green
1 sentence2020Code, § 13323 [specifying procedures for imposing administrative civil liability]; 33 U.S.C. § 1319 [EPA's concurrent authority to enforce NPDES permits issued by states]; Construction General Permit, at p. 22 [permit noncompliance violates state and federal water quality laws and is grounds for an enforcement action]; 40 C.F.R. § 122.41 [any NPDES "permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action"].) The notices of violation arising from the Portola development establish that the State Board is investigating—and needs to enforce—precise | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Environmental Defense Project v. County of Sierra
green
1 sentence2012(Environmental Defense Project, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 881 .) The court concluded that the notices of hearing had to be given after the board received the planning commission’s recommendations, not before. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Yeroushalmi v. Miramar Sheraton
green
1 sentence2006As the court noted in Yeroushalmi , “citizen enforcement was conditioned upon the failure of state and local government agencies to commence or diligently prosecute an action, after due notice.” (Yeroushalmi v. Miramar Sheraton, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 748 , citing Prop. 65; see now Historical and Statutory Notes, 40E West’s Ann. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
City of Denver v. Kennedy
green
1 sentence1926Ed. 624 , 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 317, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes]; City of Denver v. Kennedy, 33 Colo. 80 [ 80 Pac. 122 , 467].) We are therefore of the opinion that section 10 of said act, providing for the determination of the matters to be inquired into at the hearing held in accordance therewith and with the notices of such hearing provided for in the preceding sections of the act, is not subject to the objections urged by the respondent, and that as to the matters thus determined its provisions sufficiently meet the legal requirements of due process of law. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.