§Why CasetextPricing

SIERRA CLUB v. COUNTY OF FRESNO (FRIANT RANCH)

Amicus Curiae Brief of Association of Irritated Residents, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, and Coalition for Clean Air

7 Cited authorities

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

    124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 171 times   14 Legal Analyses
    In Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1203-1204, the court rejected Bakersfield's argument that the appeal, which challenged project approvals for two retail shopping centers, was rendered moot by the completion of the project. The court held that while the shopping centers were complete and several businesses were already in operation, the appeal was not moot because, among other reasons, "even at this late juncture full CEQA compliance would not be a meaningless exercise of form over substance."

  2. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

    13 Cal.3d 68 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 270 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Professing no “ question” of trial court's power in traditional mandamus to order interlocutory remand to agency for clarification of findings

  3. Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond

    184 Cal.App.4th 70 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 91 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding project description inadequate where project proponent provided conflicting descriptions of oil refinery project, leading to confusion over whether project would allow refinery to process a more pollution-intensive petroleum product

  4. Federation of Hillside and Canyon v. Los Angeles

    83 Cal.App.4th 1252 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 88 times
    Rejecting argument raised in conclusory fashion

  5. Vedanta Society v. California Quartet

    84 Cal.App.4th 517 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 37 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Vedanta, the court reversed after it found that a tie vote during an appeal to the board of supervisors, which left the decision of the planning commission in that case intact by default, did not amount to the required consideration by the board.

  6. Lincoln Place Tenants v. City of Los Angeles

    130 Cal.App.4th 1491 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 29 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that questions of law in case arising under CEQA are reviewed de novo

  7. People v. County of Kern

    39 Cal.App.3d 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 84 times
    In People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 67], the Kern County Planning Department prepared a five-page addendum to the draft of the EIR in response to numerous comments and extensive criticism of the draft EIR. "It also prepared a two-page `environmental impact summary' which merely contained one-paragraph statements of the major impacts on population, water supply, sewage disposal, air pollution, geologic hazard, wildlife and access-circulation.