Cases

Justice ALITOdelivered the opinion of the Court. We granted certiorari to consider two questions relating to the manner in which San Francisco police officers arrested a woman who was suffering from a mental illness and had become violent. After reviewing the parties' submissions, we dismiss the first question as improvidently granted. We decide the second question and hold that the o

*1264 Opinion MILLER, J. —This writ petition raises the narrow question whether a petition to compel the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to produce documents under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.; PRA) can properly be filed in superior court, or whe

Filed 3/3/22 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE CIM URBAN REIT 211 MAIN STREET (SF) LP, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A161244 v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., (City & County of San Francisco

Filed 3/29/22 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE CIM URBAN REIT 211 MAIN STREET (SF) LP, et al., A161244 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (City & County of San Francisco v.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2034 Doc: 68 Filed: 08/14/2023 Pg: 1 of 45 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-2034 JOHN AND JANE PARENTS 1; JOHN PARENT 2, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOA

57 Cal.Rptr.3d 704 (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1089 COUNTY OF AMADOR et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF PLYMOUTH et al., Defendants; Ione Band of Miwok Indians, Intervener and Appellant. No. C050066. Court of Appeal of California, Third District. April 17, 2007. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing May 10, 2007.

ACCEPTED 13-14-00725-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 4/2/2015 10

88 Cal.Rptr.2d 552 (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1008 CITY OF SAN JOSE, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Santa Clara County, Respondent; San Jose Mercury News, Inc., Real Party in Interest. No. H019262. Court of Appeal, Sixth District. September 8, 1999. Review Denied December 1, 1999.[*]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA, Respondent; DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest. S274927 Sixth Appellate District H048486 Santa Clara County Superior Court

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESUS PIMENTEL; DAVID R. No. 22-55946 WELCH; JEFFREY O'CONNELL; EDWARD LEE; WENDY COOPER; D.C. No. JACKLYN BAIRD; RAFAEL 2:14-cv-01371- BUELNA, and all persons similarly FMO-E situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, OPINION and ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee, v. ELEN KAR

Filed 2/27/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE CORY SPENCER et al., B309225 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC629596) v. CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION KEVIN R. HUENNEKENS, Bankruptcy Judge. The debtors, Circuit City Stores, Inc., et al, (the “Debtors,” or “Circuit City”) filed these bankruptcy cases under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 10, 2008 (the “Petition Date”).1 The Debtors’ bankruptcy cases were consolidated for joint administration pursuant to Rule 1015(b) of the Fed

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., Chief Judge. Through the present action, Halema Buzayan and the Buzayan family seek damages as a result of events stemming from hit-and-run charges levied against Halema as a result of an incident which allegedly occurred in Davis, California, on June 7, 2005. Presently before the Court are cross-motions for partial summary judgment brought with respect to two

ORDER G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge. Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 265), Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 271), Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 333), and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Certification of Issue for Interlocutory Appeal. (Doc. 334). For the reasons stated below, each motion for summary judgment is granted in part

Filed 3/26/19; Modified and Certified for Pub. 4/22/19 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- SUSTAINABILITY, PARKS, RECYCLING AND C066582 WILDLIFE DEFENSE FUND (SPRAWLDEF), Plaintiff and Appellant,

86 F.Supp.2d 1042 (2000) CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO, INC., Plaintiff, v. The CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, Defendant. No. CIV. A. 92-M-21. United States District Court, D. Colorado. March 7, 2000. *1043 Todd Welch, J. Scott Detamore, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Denver, CO, for plaintiff. Norman R. Bangeman, De

612 F.3d 1140 (2010) Oscar J. BROWNFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF YAKIMA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 09-35628. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 8, 2010. Filed July 27, 2010. *1142 John G. Bergmann, Helsell Fetterman, LLP, Seattle, WA, and Lish Whitson, Lish Whitson, P

22 Cal.Rptr.3d 724 (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 343 SAN RAMON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. A105588. Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two. December 28, 2004. *725 Steefel, Levitt

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2989-18T1 THE ESTATE OF FRANK A. CAMPAGNA and THE HEIRS OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION A. CAMPAGNA by CHRISTINE June 17, 2020 CAMPAGNA, as Administratrix Ad Prosequend

BRAY, J. Plaintiff sued to have defendant’s use of a certain traffic easement for ingress to and egress from its property upon which its store is located, by its customers and others, declared a public nuisance and enjoined. Defendant appeals from a judgment in plaintiff’s favor. Questions Presented 1. Is the use of a traffic easement in a residential zone for purposes of ingress and egress t