§Why CasetextPricing

BERKELEY HILLSIDE PRESERVATION v. CITY OF BERKELEY

Respondents, City of Berkeley, City Council of the City of Berkeley, and Freada Kapor-Klein, and Real Party in Interest, Mitchell D. Kapor, Opening Brief on the Merits

68 Cited authorities

  1. Hughes v. Pair

    46 Cal.4th 1035 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 970 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that discomfort, worry, anxiety, upset stomach, concern, and agitation did not establish severe emotional distress

  2. Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope Opportunity

    19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,075 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anti-SLAPP motions brought "to strike a cause of action arising from a statement made before, or in connection with an issue under consideration by, a legally authorized official proceeding need not separately demonstrate that the statement concerned an issue of public significance."

  3. Reno v. Baird

    18 Cal.4th 640 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 584 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that FEHA's provisions regarding employment discrimination applied only to employers, in contrast to provisions regarding harassment which did apply to individuals as well as employers

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

    9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 587 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

  5. Cit. for Resp. Growth v. City

    40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 402 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Concluding “we determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures” in a case where appellant sought writ under both sections

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

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 619 times   23 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

  7. Coal. of Conc. Com. v. City

    34 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 255 times
    Confirming interpretation of the statutory text by examining the legislative history

  8. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors

    52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 283 times   5 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

  9. Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors

    87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 195 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Upholding EIR calling for developer payments to government fund as mitigation measure for traffic impacts

  10. DeVita v. County of Napa

    9 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 200 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Describing Simpson as concluding that "the initiative and referendum power could not be used in areas in which the local legislative body's discretion was largely preempted by statutory mandate"

  11. Section 15006 - Reducing Delay and Paperwork

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15006

    Public agencies should reduce delay and paperwork by: (a) Integrating the CEQA process into early planning. (15004(c)) (b) Ensuring the swift and fair resolution of lead agency disputes. (15053) (c) Identifying projects which fit within categorical exemptions and are therefore exempt from CEQA processing. (15300.4) (d) Using initial studies to identify significant environmental issues and to narrow the scope of EIRs. (15063) (e) Using a negative declaration when a project not otherwise exempt will