Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A168645
|
Casa Mira Homeowners Assn. v. California Coastal Commission
Because "existing structures" under Coastal Act Section 30235 meant those structures in place when the statute was enacted, protective shoreline armoring only included the 1972 and not 1984 building. |
Environmental Law |
|
V. Rodriguez | Dec. 16, 2024 |
A168163
|
Rehearing: Friends of the South Fork Gualala v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection
Trial court did not err in denying seventh disability accommodation request for counsel due to the statutory mandate that CEQA cases be determined quickly. |
Civil Procedure, Environmental Law |
|
J. Streeter | Nov. 26, 2024 |
H051232
|
Working Families of Monterey County v. King City Planning Commission
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Class 32 exemption for infill development does not have a city population requirement. |
Environmental Law |
|
P. Bamattre-Manoukian | Nov. 20, 2024 |
B326446
|
Modification: Gooden v. County of Los Angeles
Where County's amendment to proposed land use plan did not alter the plan's main features, California Environmental Quality Act was not violated. |
Environmental Law, Municipal Law |
|
B. Hoffstadt | Nov. 18, 2024 |
B319121
|
West Adams Heritage Assn. v. City of Los Angeles
Noise concerns of a housing project near university did not constitute a significant environmental effect impeding the application of a Class 32 California Environmental Quality Act exemption. |
Environmental Law |
|
H. Bendix | Nov. 4, 2024 |
B326446
|
Gooden v. County of Los Angeles
Where County's amendment to proposed land use plan did not alter the plan's main features, California Environmental Quality Act was not violated. |
Environmental Law, Municipal Law |
|
B. Hoffstadt | Oct. 29, 2024 |
A165677
|
People ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake
Environmental impact report insufficiently disclosed information regarding increased wildfire risks, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
C. Hite | Oct. 25, 2024 |
B331779
|
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning v. County of Los Angeles
Despite involving California Environmental Quality Act violations, environmental groups' claim questioning County's approval of project's tentative tract map fell within the Subdivision Map Act's requirement for serving summons. |
Environmental Law, Real Property |
|
G. Feuer | Oct. 24, 2024 |
23-2443
|
U.S. v. Korotkiy
Chief Engineer of foreign-flagged ship may be held criminally liable for inaccurate records of "oily bilge water" dumping in U.S. waters. |
Maritime Law, Environmental Law |
|
S. Mendoza | Oct. 14, 2024 |
C101151
|
Save Our Capitol! v. Dept. of General Services
Senate Bill 174--which limited Plaintiffs' CEQA challenges to a project concerning changes to the State Capitol--did not violate Article IV, Section 28 of the California Constitution. |
Environmental Law, Constitutional Law |
|
S. Boulware Eurie | Oct. 9, 2024 |
A167698
|
Modification: Sunflower Alliance v. California Dept. of Conservation
Project to convert an oil well, which formerly pumped oil and water from an aquifer, into an injection well, which would pump excess water back into the aquifer, was a CEQA exempt negligible change. |
Environmental Law |
|
G. Burns | Oct. 9, 2024 |
C099086
|
Yolo Land and Water Defense v. County of Yolo (Teichert Inc.)
Although petitioner elected to prepare the administrative record, County was properly awarded costs for preparing documents requested pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
L. Mauro | Oct. 7, 2024 |
F084229
|
California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition v. State Air Resources Bd.
Rejection of particular proposed alternative to proposed regulation did not violate CEQA where the alternative was fundamentally opposed to the regulation's purpose and other reasonable alternatives were considered and rejected. |
Environmental Law |
|
B. Hill | Sep. 26, 2024 |
23-55469
|
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation v. Naples Restaurant Group, LLC
Plaintiff's Clean Water Act case was rendered moot after defendant obtained necessary permit to allow for fireworks display over Los Angeles' bay. |
Environmental Law |
|
P. Bumatay | Sep. 19, 2024 |
E078241
|
Upland Community First v. City of Upland
Where substantial scientific and factual evidence supported project's use of emission's threshold amount, trial court erred in concluding otherwise. |
Environmental Law |
|
R. Fields | Sep. 17, 2024 |
A167698
|
Sunflower Alliance v. California Dept. of Conservation
Project to convert an oil well, which formerly pumped oil and water from an aquifer, into an injection well, which would pump excess water back into the aquifer, was a CEQA exempt negligible change. |
Environmental Law |
|
G. Burns | Sep. 10, 2024 |
B320547
|
Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network v. City of Los Angeles
Despite being a non-elected body, the City of LA's Planning Commission had authority under CEQA to approve multi-component project's final environmental impact report. |
Environmental Law |
|
B. Currey | Aug. 21, 2024 |
H051322
|
Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Benito
Trial court erred in ruling parties' writ petition in CEQA action as time-barred where it calculated the statutory timeframe based on the wrong notice of determination date. |
Environmental Law |
|
P. Bamattre-Manoukian | Aug. 8, 2024 |
A165324
|
Nassiri v. City of Lafayette
Development project was exempt from Environmental Quality Act review where project satisfied other criteria and no evidence showed the project site had value as habitat for rare or threatened species. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Miller | Jul. 19, 2024 |
23A349
|
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency
Stay of Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement of air pollution plan while States' challenge was pending should have been granted where EPA failed to reasonably explain its action. |
Environmental Law |
|
N. Gorsuch | Jun. 28, 2024 |
22-35764
|
Cascadia Wildlands v. Scott Timber Co.
Environmental group's 2014 anticipatory notice to logging company of Endangered Species Act litigation was adequate notice to satisfy statutory requirements and commence a citizen suit. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. McKeown | Jun. 27, 2024 |
21-35881
|
Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. Port of Tacoma
State industrial stormwater permit's plain text extended Clean Water Act discharge requirements to all discharges from the facility not just to portions where industrial activities occurred. |
Environmental Law |
|
E. Miller | Jun. 11, 2024 |
S279242
|
Make UC a Good Neighbor v. The Regents of the University of California
Plaintiffs' claims that environmental impact report was inadequate for failure to consider social noise and alternative sites lacked merit because of urgency legislation that amended the California Environmental Quality Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
P. Guerrero | Jun. 7, 2024 |
21-15163
|
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Haaland
Despite new information regarding protected species, government agencies properly followed Endangered Species Act consultation requirements. |
Environmental Law |
|
S. Ikuta | May 24, 2024 |
23-15492
|
Friends of the Inyo v. United States Forest Service
U.S. Forest Service was prohibited from combining two environmental Categorical Exclusions when neither would cover a proposed action alone. |
Environmental Law |
|
R. Desai | May 22, 2024 |
C100160
|
Save the Capitol, Save the Trees v. Dept. of General Services
Trial court erred by discharging preemptory writ of mandate without first determining whether defendant remedied CEQA compliance issues previously identified by the Court of Appeal. |
Environmental Law, Civil Procedure |
|
L. Mauro | May 16, 2024 |
B315256
|
People v. Plains All American Pipeline, LP
Trial court erroneously denied restitution for victims of environmental crime based on their mediated civil settlements and class action lawsuits. |
Remedies, Environmental Law |
|
H. Baltodano | May 6, 2024 |
23-3754
|
Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot v. State of Montana
Preliminary injunction was appropriate in Endangered Species Act lawsuit because claims raised a serious question on the merits and finding regarding threat of imminent harm was not wholly unsupported. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Bennett | Apr. 24, 2024 |
22-35857
|
Amended Opinion: Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Jeffries
Because the U.S. Forest Service retained control and considered several alternatives, its project replacing diseased trees with disease-resistant ones did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
Apr. 17, 2024 | |
A165345
|
Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. v. City of Ukiah
For California Environmental Quality Act purposes, construction on land leased from the city may have been "discretionary" where the City was under no obligation to allow the construction. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Goldman | Apr. 2, 2024 |