§Why CasetextPricing

LYNCH v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

Amicus Curiae Brief of Surfrider Foundation

23 Cited authorities

  1. City of Long Beach v. Mansell

    3 Cal.3d 462 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 352 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Mansell, the city had never protested the use of the lands at issue over the course of almost seventy years, and thousands of residents would have been affected by the city's land use action.

  2. Sumner Hill Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC

    205 Cal.App.4th 999 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 107 times
    Rejecting a new defense theory on appeal

  3. U.S. v. Milner

    583 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 77 times
    Finding Federal common law governs an action for trespass and "that law generally comports with the Restatement of Torts"

  4. Kiawah Development Partners v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control

    411 S.C. 16 (S.C. 2014)   Cited 65 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding if "the language of a statute or regulation directly speaks to the issue .... the court must utilize the clear meaning of the statute or regulation"

  5. National Audubon Society v. Superior Court

    33 Cal.3d 419 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 159 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the state must . . . consider the effect of the taking on the public trust and . . . preserve, so far as consistent with the public interest, the uses protected by the trust"

  6. Borax, Ltd. v. Los Angeles

    296 U.S. 10 (1935)   Cited 145 times
    Approving definition of "mean high tide line" based on "average height of all the high waters . . . over a considerable period of time," at least 18.6 years

  7. Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois

    146 U.S. 387 (1892)   Cited 398 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the same doctrine as to the dominion and sovereignty over and ownership of lands under the navigable waters . . . applies, which obtains at the common law as to the dominion and sovereignty over and ownership of lands under tide waters on the borders of the sea"

  8. Ocean Harbor House Homeowners Assn. v. California Coastal Commission

    163 Cal.App.4th 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 19 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Ocean Harbor, a homeowners association sought to build a seawall to protect the association's condominium complex from erosion that threatened the complex's structural integrity.

  9. Marks v. Whitney

    6 Cal.3d 251 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 75 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a patentee of tidelands has no right to fill and develop his trust land property in a way that interferes with the public's rights in those lands

  10. Lechuza Villas West v. California Coastal Com

    60 Cal.App.4th 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 29 times

    Docket Nos. B105571, B110008. December 19, 1997. [Opinion certified for partial publication ] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts C.4., C.5., C.6., and C.7 Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC076855, Ernest M. Hiroshige and Robert H. O'Brien, Judges. COUNSEL Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Roderick E. Walston, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Frank and Jan S. Stevens

  11. Section 4

    Cal. Const. art. X § 4   Cited 32 times

    No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose, nor to destroy or obstruct the free navigation of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision, so that access to the navigable waters of this State shall

  12. Section 670 - State ownership of land below water

    Cal. Civ. Code § 670   Cited 32 times
    In Civil Code section 670, quoted in part above, the Legislature also provided that " The State is the owner of all land below tide water, and below ordinary high-water mark...."

  13. Section 30604 - Issuance of permit

    Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 30604   Cited 32 times

    (a) Prior to certification of the local coastal program, a coastal development permit shall be issued if the issuing agency, or the commission on appeal, finds that the proposed development is in conformity with Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) and that the permitted development will not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a local coastal program that is in conformity with Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200). A denial of a coastal development permit on grounds

  14. Section 30210 - Constitutional requirements

    Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 30210   Cited 26 times
    Requiring that "recreational opportunities" be provided

  15. Section 30211 - Development not to interfere with public's access to sea

    Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 30211   Cited 12 times

    Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. Ca. Pub. Res. Code § 30211 Amended by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1331.

  16. Section 66478.1 - Legislative intent

    Cal. Gov. Code § 66478.1   Cited 3 times
    In section 66478.1, the Legislature stated its intent that "the provisions of Sections 66478.1 through 66478.10... implement Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution [as applicable to] navigable waters."