Legal Opinion
Disenhouse v. Peevey
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 3, 2014No. D063799PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McConnell, P. J.—
INTRODUCTION
In this case, we must reconcile a Public Utilities Code provision depriving the superior courts of jurisdiction “to enjoin, restrain, or interfere with the [Public Utilities Commission] in the performance of its official duties” (Pub. Util. Code, § 1759, subd. (a)) 1 with a Government Code provision authorizing any interested person to “commence an action by mandamus, injunction, or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations” of the state’s open meeting law. (Gov. Code, § 11130, subd. (a).) We conclude a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Waters v. Pacific Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Southern California Edison Co. v. PeeveyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- McWilliams v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- Lockaway Storage v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Ass'n of Hollywood v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Pegastaff v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Public Utilities Commission v. Superior Court of San Francisco CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Cal. Public Utilities Com. v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Cerletti v. NewsomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.