§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition

undefined

55 Cited authorities

  1. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization

    19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 652 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”

  2. Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (Air Resources Board)

    9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 594 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it would be improper to take judicial notice of evidence that was both absent from the administrative record and not before the agency at the time of its decision because such evidence is not relevant

  3. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 632 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion if it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project and the future expansion will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects

  4. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors

    52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 291 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to make a timely comment does not excuse the lead agency from providing substantial evidence to fulfill its duty to identify and discuss project alternatives

  5. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield

    124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 174 times   14 Legal Analyses
    In Bakersfield, the real parties in interest were private developers of two shopping mall projects, and the plaintiff challenged the city's project approvals based on inadequacy of the EIRs. (Id. at pp. 1194-1195.)

  6. Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission

    41 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 133 times   14 Legal Analyses
    In Muzzy Ranch, we were concerned with the level of detail required to apply the commonsense exemption from CEQA review.

  7. Porterville Citizens v. Porterville

    157 Cal.App.4th 885 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 121 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Porterville, the trial court's tentative statement of decision failed to expressly rule on a cause of action alleging a violation of provisions in the Subdivision Map Act and the municipal code.

  8. San Franciscans v. City Cty., San Francisco

    102 Cal.App.4th 656 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 134 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Referring to "commercial and retail space" in describing downtown San Francisco's preservation policies

  9. Association, Irritated v. Madera Co.

    107 Cal.App.4th 1383 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 130 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding an EIR's biological impact conclusion because record established agency's expert reviewed relevant databases, “then conducted a field study, after which she analyzed her findings and prepared a written report”

  10. Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange

    131 Cal.App.4th 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 113 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding mitigation measure that requires construction to "meet 'exterior and interior noise standards' satisfactory to the manager of the county's building permit division insufficient" because "[n]o criteria or alternatives to be considered are set out. Rather, this mitigation measure does no more than require a report be prepared and followed, or allow approval by a county department without setting any standards."