11 Cited authorities

Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope Opportunity
19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999) Cited 1,069 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."
Reno v. Baird
18 Cal.4th 640 (Cal. 1998) Cited 581 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
E.P.I. Center v. C.F.F.P
44 Cal.4th 459 (Cal. 2008) Cited 137 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding no prejudice for omission of documents which were duplicative of information already contained in the EIR
Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles
55 Cal.4th 783 (Cal. 2012) Cited 107 times 1 Legal Analyses
Characterizing the statute being construed as “unclear or ambiguous”
Sierra Club v. Superior Court (County of Orange)
57 Cal.4th 157 (Cal. 2013) Cited 81 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Sierra Club, a CPRA statute specifically excluded" '[c]omputer software' from the definition of a public record" and defined" 'computer software'" as including "computer mapping systems."
Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist.
60 Cal.App.4th 1109 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 77 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding inadequate an EIR that omitted a meaningful discussion of the regionally important vineyards and wineries that surrounded a project; "[d]ue to the inadequate description of the environmental setting for the project, a proper analysis of project impacts was impossible"
Watershed Enforcers v. Department of Water Resources
185 Cal.App.4th 969 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 19 times
In Watershed Enforcers v. Department of Water Resources (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 969, 979, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 876 (Watershed Enforcers), another Court of Appeal explained "the literal textual meaning" of "person" as defined by section 67 "would seem to exclude state agencies."
Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. State Water Resources Control Bd.
63 Cal.App.4th 227 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 20 times
Docket No. C023259. December 16, 1997. Appeal from Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. 95CS00347, James Timothy Ford, Judge.) COUNSEL Laurens H. Silver and Kelly L. Drumm for Plaintiffs and Appellants. William C. Katzenstein, County Counsel, Karin Watts-Bazan, Deputy County Counsel, Remy, Thomas Moose, Michael H. Remy and John H. Mattox for Real Parties in Interest and Appellants. Ruth Sorensen as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants. OPINION MORRISON, J. The trial
People v. Sam Davis
147 Cal. 346 (Cal. 1905) Cited 51 times
In People v. Davis (1905) 147 Cal. 346 [ 81 P. 718] "... the Supreme Court flatly rejected the notion that its discretionary denial of a hearing, for undisclosed reasons, could be interpreted as a positive approval, and adoption of the point of law decided by the court of appeal."
Section 1506.10 - Filing requirements
40 C.F.R. § 1506.10 Cited 37 times
Allowing the lead agency to extend prescribed periods and allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the 45 day period based on "compelling reasons of national policy"
Section 670.5 - Animals of California Declared To Be Endangered or Threatened
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 670.5 Cited 13 times
The following species and subspecies are hereby declared to be endangered or threatened, as indicated: (a) Endangered: (1) Crustaceans: (A) California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica) (B) Shasta crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis) (2) Fishes: (A) Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (B) Mohave tui chub (Gila bicolor mohavensis) (C) Owens tui chub (Gila bicolor snyderi) (D) Bonytail (Gila elegans) (E) Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) (F) Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) (G) Modoc sucker

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE (NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY)

11 Cited authorities

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."

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

Finding no prejudice for omission of documents which were duplicative of information already contained in the EIR

Characterizing the statute being construed as “unclear or ambiguous”

In Sierra Club, a CPRA statute specifically excluded" '[c]omputer software' from the definition of a public record" and defined" 'computer software'" as including "computer mapping systems."

Finding inadequate an EIR that omitted a meaningful discussion of the regionally important vineyards and wineries that surrounded a project; "[d]ue to the inadequate description of the environmental setting for the project, a proper analysis of project impacts was impossible"

In Watershed Enforcers v. Department of Water Resources (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 969, 979, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 876 (Watershed Enforcers), another Court of Appeal explained "the literal textual meaning" of "person" as defined by section 67 "would seem to exclude state agencies."

In People v. Davis (1905) 147 Cal. 346 [ 81 P. 718] "... the Supreme Court flatly rejected the notion that its discretionary denial of a hearing, for undisclosed reasons, could be interpreted as a positive approval, and adoption of the point of law decided by the court of appeal."

Allowing the lead agency to extend prescribed periods and allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the 45 day period based on "compelling reasons of national policy"