Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
D075328
|
Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego
Trial court erred in determining that Supplemental Environmental Impact Report contained inconsistent geographic scope because plaintiffs failed to adequately exhaust administrative remedies on that issue. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Irion | Jun. 16, 2020 |
H047068
|
Modification: Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. City of San Jose
City's actions in connection with Streambed Alteration Agreement could not be construed as 'approval of project' requiring further environmental review under CEQA. |
Environmental Law |
|
N. Mihara | Jun. 11, 2020 |
C082944
|
Modification: Delta Stewardship Council Cases
Delta Reform Act did not require Council to adopt, as legally enforceable regulations, performance measure targets to achieve certain objectives of the Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Butz | Jun. 9, 2020 |
19-70115
|
National Family Farm Coalition v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Substantial evidence did not support EPA's decision to grant registration for dicamba herbicides as required under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
W. Fletcher | Jun. 5, 2020 |
18-15937
|
In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation
Congress intended to allow states to enforce anti-tampering rules related to post-sale vehicles, and such rules are not impliedly preempted. |
Environmental Law |
|
S. Ikuta | Jun. 3, 2020 |
A151004
|
Valero Refining Co. v. Bay Area Air Quality
Hearing board applied correct standard of review in determining whether agency official's interpretation of regulation was correct because it was not empowered to evaluate its fairness. |
Environmental Law |
|
T. Stewart | Jun. 1, 2020 |
18-16830
|
Stand Up For California! v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior
Agency was required to conduct Environmental Impact Statement because Indian Gaming Regulatory Act did not foreclose consideration of other federal law. |
Environmental Law |
|
R. Gould | May 28, 2020 |
H047068
|
Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. City of San Jose
City's actions in connection with Streambed Alteration Agreement could not be construed as 'approval of project' requiring further environmental review under CEQA. |
Environmental Law |
|
N. Mihara | May 20, 2020 |
C082944
|
Delta Stewardship Council Cases
Delta Reform Act did not require Council to adopt, as legally enforceable regulations, performance measure targets to achieve certain objectives of the Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Butz | May 14, 2020 |
18-16836
|
Center for Biological Diversity v. Esper
NHPA Section 402 compliance does not require agency to consult with specific parties or permit direct public participation. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Jack | May 7, 2020 |
B294732
|
Modification: Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District
Agency's choice of using near-peak baseline was sound because it followed the practice of the federal Environmental Protection Agency. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Wiley | May 6, 2020 |
19-35665
|
Bark v. United States Forest Service
Environmental Impact Statement was required because Plaintiffs raised substantial questions on whether project would affect quality of human environment. |
Environmental Law |
|
S. Higginson | May 5, 2020 |
18-35514
|
Oregon Natural Desert Association v. United States Forest Service
Forest Service had no duty to memorialize each site-specific authorization's consistency with the Forest Plan. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Smith | May 4, 2020 |
18-260
|
County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund
Clean Water Act requires permit from Environmental Protection Agency when there is direct discharge from point source into navigable waters or when there is 'functional equivalent of a direct discharge.' |
Environmental Law |
|
S. Breyer | Apr. 24, 2020 |
19-71324
|
In re Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.
EPA unreasonably and egregiously delayed performance of its statutory duties on critical matter of public health which warranted extraordinary remedy of issuing writ of mandamus. |
Environmental Law |
|
R. Gould | Apr. 23, 2020 |
17-1498
|
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian
Montana Supreme Court erred by holding that landowners whose properties were contaminated were not potentially responsible parties under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Roberts | Apr. 21, 2020 |
B294732
|
Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District
Agency's choice of using near-peak baseline was sound because it followed the practice of the federal Environmental Protection Agency. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Wiley | Apr. 9, 2020 |
B293327
|
Coalition for an Equitable Westlake/Macarthur Park v. City of Los Angeles
Plaintiff's California Environmental Quality Act claims were barred because they were filed more than 30 days after Notice of Determination. |
Environmental Law |
|
C. Moor | Apr. 6, 2020 |
B287079
|
Mountainlands Conservancy, LLC v. California Coastal Commission
California Coastal Commission certification of local coastal program for Santa Monica Mountains conformed with Public Resources Code Section 30242 because land was unsuitable for agriculture. |
Environmental Law |
|
E. Grimes | Apr. 3, 2020 |
F077656
|
Modification: King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern
Mitigation measure for project's significant impacts to water supplies inappropriately deferred formulation of the measures and thus violated California Environmental Quality Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
D. Franson | Mar. 25, 2020 |
B292246
|
Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills
Petitioners were not barred from recovering attorney's fees based on failing to strictly comply with California Environmental Quality Act's 10-day notice requirement. |
Environmental Law |
|
L. Zelon | Mar. 19, 2020 |
C076888
|
Environmental Council of Sacramento v. County of Sacramento
County's description in Environmental Impact Report was legally adequate because it contained good faith efforts and was not required to assess future developments. |
Environmental Law |
|
V. Raye | Mar. 4, 2020 |
F077656
|
King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern
Mitigation measure for project's significant impacts to water supplies inappropriately deferred formulation of the measures and thus violated California Environmental Quality Act. |
Environmental Law |
|
D. Franson | Mar. 3, 2020 |
A154448
|
Modification: Sturgell v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
A sale and transfer of Dungeness Crab Vessel permit approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife rendered the appeal reinstating respondent's permit moot. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Richman | Jan. 6, 2020 |
C080342
|
Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist.
Mitigation measures that aim to detect greenhouse gas emissions are adequate to ensure energy facilities adhere to their emission limitation commitments; detection is sufficient to deter non-compliance. |
Environmental Law |
|
C. Blease | Dec. 26, 2019 |
18-35982
|
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Wheeler
Constructive submission found where state failed over long period of time to submit 'total maximum daily loads' under Clean Water Act, and clearly and unambiguously decided not to submit any TMDL. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. McKeown | Dec. 23, 2019 |
A152988
|
Modification: United Artists Theater Circuit v. Regional Water Quality Control Board
Prior owner may be named in cleanup order as one who 'permitted' discharge if it knew or should have known that lessee's activity presented a reasonable possibility of hazardous waste discharge. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Simons | Dec. 20, 2019 |
D074474
|
Holden v. City of San Diego
City reasonably concluded that project is compatible with General Plan and Community Plan; thus, project was exempt from CEQA requirements. |
Environmental Law |
|
C. Aaron | Dec. 17, 2019 |
A154448
|
Sturgell v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
A sale and transfer of Dungeness Crab Vessel permit approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife rendered the appeal reinstating respondent's permit moot. |
Environmental Law |
|
J. Richman | Dec. 10, 2019 |
18-55481
|
U.S. v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
42 U.S.C. Section 7412 authorizes the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board to investigate not just an oil refinery's release of hazardous materials, but prospective damage as well. |
Environmental Law |
|
P. Curiam (9th Cir.) | Dec. 10, 2019 |