Legal Opinion
Yeroushalmi v. Miramar Sheraton
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 25, 2001No. B132719, B132723, B134924PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HASTINGS, J.
Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.5 et seq.), provides for citizen enforcement if applicable government agencies fail to undertake enforcement after service of an appropriate notice of violation. Here, appellants sent notices relating to alleged violations by various commercial establishments throughout the state and then filed suit after the applicable governmental agencies failed to take steps to enforce the alleged violations. We conclude that the notices sent were insufficient because they failed to…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Hallstrom v. Tillamook CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- California Teachers Ass'n v. San Diego Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Russell E. Train, in His Official Capacity as Administrator, Environmental Protection AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1975
- Evangelatos v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Cortina v. Goya Foods, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2015
- DiPIRRO v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
- CENTER FOR SELF-IMPROVEMENT & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT v. Lennar Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- In Re Vaccine CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Sciortino v. Pepsico, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.