§Why CasetextPricing

SIERRA CLUB v. COUNTY OF FRESNO (FRIANT RANCH)

Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

10 Cited authorities

  1. Sierra Club v. City of Orange

    163 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 171 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Upholding EIR that briefly explained elimination of three possible alternatives

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

    6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 247 times   13 Legal Analyses
    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"

  3. 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."

  4. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford

    221 Cal.App.3d 692 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 126 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720, the court found that an EIR that focused on "the ratio between the project's impacts and the overall problem" did not adequately assess the project's cumulative impacts.

  5. Sierra Club v. County of Fresno

    172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 271 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses

    F066798 05-27-2014 SIERRA CLUB et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF FRESNO et al., Defendants and Respondents; Friant Ranch, L.P., Real Party in Interest. Law Office of Sara Hedgpeth–Harris and Sara Hedgpeth–Harris for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Kevin B. Briggs, County Counsel, Bruce B. Johnson, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents. Remy Moose Manley, James G. Moose, Tiffany K. Wright, Sacramento, and Laura M. Harris for Real Party in Interest. Franson, J. Law Office of

  6. Section 7412 - Hazardous air pollutants

    42 U.S.C. § 7412   Cited 438 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Mandating the EPA "require the maximum degree of reduction" that is "achievable" in regulating hazardous air pollutants

  7. Section 7409 - National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards

    42 U.S.C. § 7409   Cited 414 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting a cost/benefit analysis by preventing the EPA from considering any factor other than health effects relating to pollutants in the air in establishing NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter

  8. Section 7407 - Air quality control regions

    42 U.S.C. § 7407   Cited 314 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, § 103, Pub.L. No. 95-95, 91 Stat. 685, 687-88

  9. Section 7411 - Standards of performance for new stationary sources

    42 U.S.C. § 7411   Cited 215 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to the EPA to designate the best system and determine achievable degree of emissions reduction

  10. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,189 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or