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

Affirming the decision to not recirculate an EIR where new studies released after public review "merely serve to amplify . . . the information found in the draft EIR" and "do not alter th[e] analysis in any way"

People v. Overstreet

Reasoning that a statute should be construed "as favorably to the defendant as its language and the circumstance of its application reasonably permit"

Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.

Holding that appellate jurisdiction exists even where claims have been dismissed without prejudice to enable entry of judgment, unless the parties also have stipulated to facilitating future litigation of the dismissed claims

Bowman v. City of Petaluma

Using an addendum to determine whether further environmental review is necessary is an appropriate way to fill a procedural gap in CEQA and the Guidelines

Benton v. Board of Supervisors

In Benton, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d 1467, 277 Cal.Rptr. 481, for example, the Court of Appeal considered whether a proposal to relocate a winery that had previously been approved via negative declaration required the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Benton held that, under CEQA Guidelines section 15162, the question whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR was required depended on the effect of the proposed relocation; the changes were not an occasion to reopen the original environmental review of the winery project.

Section 15000 - Authority