Cases

24 Cal.Rptr.3d 72 (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 43 CITY OF SANTA MONICA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Maria STEWART, Defendant and Respondent, Douglas Heller, et al., Intervenors and Respondents. Rene Amy, Plaintiff, v. City of Pasadena, et al., Defendants, Cross-Complainants and Respondents, Paul Monsour, et al., Intervenors, Cross-Defendants and Appellants. Nos. B159223, B164794, B160037

ORDER Re: CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FERNANDO M. OLGUIN, District Judge. The court has reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to the Joint Motion of Rule 19 Owner Defendants to Dismiss Crossclaims of City and CRA/LA (“Motion”), and concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the Motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n,

ORDER Re: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION CONCERNING SCOPE OF DISCOVERY FERNANDO M. OLGUIN, District Judge. Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to plaintiffs Motion to Judge Olguin Concerning the Scope of Discovery, Pursuant to Referral By Magistrate Judge Walsh (“Motion”), and concluding that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the Motion, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-1

104 Cal.Rptr.2d 772 (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 684 KATHLEEN R. et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LIVERMORE, Defendant and Respondent. No. A086349. Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four. March 6, 2001. *774 Michael Millen for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Thomas R. Curry, City Attorney,

*208Opinion BRUINIERS, J. Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs) alleged that the defendant wireless telephone companies (collectively, Defendants)1 made material misrepresentations to the consuming public as to the actual number of usable (i.e., conversational) airtime minutes in advertised subscriber rate plans.2

OPINION M. SMITH, Circuit Judge: James Real brought this civil rights action against the City of Long Beach (City), alleging that the City’s zoning ordinances violate the First Amendment by unreasonably restricting his ability to open and operate a tattoo shop in Long Beach. The district court held that Real did not have standing to bring his claims beca

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL CAMPBELL; et al, * No. 15-56990 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. 2:04-cv-08592- AG-AJW CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee. CESAR MATA,

Opinion HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. The issue in this appeal is whether a leaseback financing plan the City of San Diego (City) adopted to fund public infrastructure improvements violates state and local requirements that municipal indebtedness exceeding annual income and revenue be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate. (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 18, subd.

WERDEGAR, J., Concurring. — I concur fully in the majority opinion, which I have signed. I write separately to speak to the current status and meaning of the “reasonable relationship” constitutional standard set out in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 27 Cal.4th 643 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 269, 41 P.3d 87] (San Remo Hotel), a decision I authored for the court. As explained

523 F.Supp.2d 1036 (2007) Joyce YAMAGIWA, Trustee of the Trust Created Under Trust Agreement Dated January 30, 1980 by Charles J. Keenan, III and Anne Marie Kennan, for the Benefit of Charles J. Keenan IV, as to an Undivided 50% Interest, and Trustee of the Trust Created Under Trust Agreement Dated January 30, 1980, by Charles J. Keenan III and Anne Marie Keenan for the Benefit of Ann Marie Keenan, as to an Undivided 50% Interest, Plaintiff, v. C

1 Cal.Rptr.3d 837 (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 636 CITY OF LONG BEACH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Defendant and Appellant. No. B159333. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven. July 14, 2003. Review Granted October 1, 2003. *840 John M. Rea, Chief C

14 Cal.App.4th 1515 (1993) 18 Cal. Rptr.2d 389 STEVEN C. LEE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOMPOC et al., Defendants and Respondents; DIVERSIFIED SHOPPING CENTER, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Docket No. B066615. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six. April 15, 1993.

228 Cal.App.3d 929 (1991) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ERROL MACKZUM, as County Auditor/Controller, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents; MARK H. BLOODGOOD, as County Auditor/Controller, etc., et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents; THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Cross-defendant and Respondent. Docket No. E007876. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Di

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KATE ADAMS, No. 23-15970 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01499- v. WBS-KJN COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; ORDER AND SCOTT JONES, Sheriff, AMENDED OPINION Defendants-Appellees.

ACCEPTED 03-14-00197-CV 4929353 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEX

Cite as 2015 Ark. 200 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS IN RE SUSPENSIONS OF Opinion Delivered May 7, 2015 ATTORNEYS WHO FAILED TO PAY ANNUAL ATTORNEY-LICENSE FEE PER CURIAM On May 14, 2014, we held unconstitutional former Rule VII(C) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar to the extent the former rule provided for the suspension of attorneys

Filed 8/29/16 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE et al., ) ) Plaintiffs and Respondents, ) ) S214855 v. ) ) Ct.App. 2/1 B237153 COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES, ) ) Los Angeles County

Cite as 2025 Ark. 59 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS IN RE SUSPENSION OF Opinion Delivered: May 1, 2025 ATTORNEYS WHO FAILED TO PAY 2025 ANNUAL ATTORNEY-LICENSE FEE PER CURIAM The final deadline for attorneys to pay the 2025 annual attorney-license fee was April 15, 2025. As required by Rule VII(C)(9) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar, the clerk of t

34 Cal.Rptr.3d 626 (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 299 Eunice VIOLA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGED HEALTH CARE et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. B174455. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four. October 11, 2005. *627 Angelo & Di Monda, Christopher E. Angelo

ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV