40 Cited authorities

  1. Cit. for Resp. Growth v. City

    40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 301 times   15 Legal Analyses
    In Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pages 439–442, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d 709, the Final EIR provided conflicting figures concerning both expected water supply and expected water demand, and gave estimates contrary to a related environmental report.
  2. Laurel Heights Improv. v. Regents of Univ. of Calif

    47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 460 times   17 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
  3. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors

    52 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 226 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Requiring range of alternatives that offer substantial environmental advantages and are feasible
  4. Save Our Peninsula v. Monterey County

    87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 158 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Save Our Peninsula, the EIR indicated increased groundwater pumping would need to be mitigated; but, the applicants did not identify an offsetting pumping location until after the close of the comment periods.
  5. Laurel Hts. Impro. v. Regents of U. of C

    6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 193 times   12 Legal Analyses
    In Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at page 395, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 764 P.2d 278, we considered whether there are circumstances under which an EIR must address “future action related to” a proposed project.
  6. Sierra Club v. City of Orange

    163 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 116 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Sierra Club v. City ofOrange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, the city set forth in a footnote its claim that the plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.
  7. Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors

    8 Cal.3d 247 (Cal. 1972)   Cited 318 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the agency "is entitled to learn the contentions of interested parties before litigation is instituted . . .," but it is sufficient if other members of the public raised the issues to be litigated because then the agency would have had "its opportunity to act and to render the litigation unnecessary, if it had chosen to do so"
  8. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District

    48 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 109 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Concluding the doctrine of vested rights did not limit the agency's ability to establish an analytical baseline for a new project based on existing conditions, rather than prior permit standards
  9. Bakersfield Cit., Loc. Con. v. City, Bakers

    124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 120 times   12 Legal Analyses
    In Bakersfield, after EIR's were prepared for the development of two retail shopping centers located about three miles apart, an environmental group challenged the EIR's on the basis that they did not consider potential urban decay impacts.
  10. Ca. Nat. Plant Soc. v. City of Rancho Cordova

    172 Cal.App.4th 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 87 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting as unreasonable interpretation of "coordination" to mean "consultation"
  11. Section 15000 - Authority

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15000   Cited 325 times   7 Legal Analyses

    The regulations contained in this chapter are prescribed by the Secretary for Resources to be followed by all state and local agencies in California in the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. These Guidelines have been developed by the Office of Planning and Research for adoption by the Secretary for Resources in accordance with Section 2108-3. Additional information may be obtained by writing: Secretary for Resources Room 1311, 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 These

  12. Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1105   Cited 1,497 times

    (a) Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b) Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c) Standards for certification An

  13. Rule 8.1100 - Authority

    Cal. R. 8.1100   Cited 352 times

    The rules governing the publication of appellate opinions are adopted by the Supreme Court under section 14 of article VI of the California Constitution and published in the California Rules of Court at the direction of the Judicial Council. Cal. R. Ct. 8.1100 Rule 8.1100 adopted effective January 1, 2007.

  14. Rule 8.1120 - Requesting publication of unpublished opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1120   Cited 68 times

    (a) Request (1) Any person may request that an unpublished opinion be ordered published. (2) The request must be made by a letter to the court that rendered the opinion, concisely stating the person's interest and the reason why the opinion meets a standard for publication. (3) The request must be delivered to the rendering court within 20 days after the opinion is filed. (4) The request must be served on all parties. (b) Action by rendering court (1) If the rendering court does not or cannot grant

  15. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 12 times

    (a) In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8