§Why CasetextPricing

LYNCH v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

Respondents’ Petition for Review

48 Cited authorities

  1. Dolan v. City of Tigard

    512 U.S. 374 (1994)   Cited 800 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that compelled dedication of an easement for public use would constitute a taking

  2. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n

    483 U.S. 825 (1987)   Cited 925 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for a development exaction to be constitutional, there must be an "essential nexus" between the valid state interest and the permit condition

  3. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.

    570 U.S. 595 (2013)   Cited 293 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court could not condition the grant of land use permits upon the applicant's funding of offsite mitigation projects on public land

  4. Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc.

    11 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,746 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, when extrinsic facts eliminate the potential for coverage, an insurer may decline to defend even if the complaint had suggested potential liability

  5. Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools

    487 U.S. 450 (1988)   Cited 362 times
    Finding no constitutional violation in charging for school bus service, where the Constitution does not require that such bus service be provided at all

  6. Euclid v. Ambler Co.

    272 U.S. 365 (1926)   Cited 2,413 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a zoning ordinance that "greatly ... reduce[d] the value of appellee's lands and destroy[ed] their marketability for industrial, commercial and residential uses" constituted a "present invasion of appellee's property rights"

  7. Bickel v. City of Piedmont

    16 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 341 times
    In Bickel, the California Supreme Court held that an applicant could waive its right to deemed approval by cooperating with a lead agency's lengthy processing of its application.

  8. Hensler v. City of Glendale

    8 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 300 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting claim that a compensable taking of plaintiff's property necessarily occurred when ordinance was enacted because plaintiff conceded the ordinance "did not deny him all economically feasible use of the property"

  9. Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Association, Inc.

    171 Cal.App.4th 1356 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 142 times
    Finding that it was not necessary for the Plaintiffs to allege the detailed minutiae of how, when, and where certain non-disclosures or concealment took place and that the details of the concealment were "properly the subject of discovery, not demurrer."

  10. Nectow v. Cambridge

    277 U.S. 183 (1928)   Cited 469 times
    Holding that a court should not interfere with local zoning decisions unless the locality's action "has no foundation in reason and is a mere arbitrary or irrational exercise of power having no substantial relation to the public health, the public morals, the public safety or the public welfare in its proper sense"

  11. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. I § 1   Cited 1,056 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"

  12. Section 13252 - Repair and Maintenance of Activities Requiring a Permit

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 13252   Cited 2 times

    (a) For purposes of Public Resources Code Section 30610(d), the following extraordinary methods of repair and maintenance shall require a coastal development permit because they involve a risk of substantial adverse environmental impact: (1) Any method of repair or maintenance of a seawall revetment, bluff retaining wall, breakwater, groin, culvert, outfall, or similar shoreline work that involves: (A) Repair or maintenance involving substantial alteration of the foundation of the protective work

  13. Section 13136 - Scope of Subchapter

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 13136   Cited 1 times

    This Subchapter governs procedures for processing applications for permits or waivers to perform work to resolve problems resulting from a situation falling within the definition of "emergency" in Section 13009 and pursuant to the provisions of Public Resources Code Sections 30611 and 30624, for which the Commission has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 30519(b). Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 13136 1. Amendment filed 8-14-81; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 81, No. 33). 2. Change without

  14. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer