Legal Opinion
Cockshott v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 22, 2004No. C045732PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SIMS, Acting P. J.
In this case, we hold that the statute of limitations governing the filing of a petition for administrative mandamus challenging a decision of the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (the Board) is found in Public Resources Code section 4601.3.
Defendant Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Department) filed an administrative complaint charging plaintiff Perry D. Cockshott, a licensed timber operator, with unlawfully cutting and removing trees without a timber harvesting plan in violation of the Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act (the Act). (§§ 4511, 4581,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McCall v. PacifiCare of California, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
- San Francisco Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Miller v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- California Standardbred Sires Stakes Committee, Inc. v. California Horse Racing BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Sinetos v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Patterson Flying Service v. Department of Pesticide RegulationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Capitol Racing, LLC v. California Horse Racing BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Murray Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Stiles v. Kia Motors America, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2024
- Stiles v. Kia Motors America, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2024