Legal Opinion

Sterling Park, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto

California Supreme Court

Decided October 17, 2013No. S204771PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CHIN, J.

A developer wanted to build 96 condominiums on a parcel of land. As a condition of obtaining a permit to do so, the city required the developer to set aside 10 condominium units as below market rate housing and make a substantial cash payment to a city fund. The developer proceeded with the construction but challenged in court these requirements pursuant to a statute that permits a developer to proceed with a project while also “protest-ting] the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project.” (Gov. Code, § 66020, subd.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Ehrlich v. City of Culver CityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  3. County of San Diego v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho CucamongaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Clark v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. California Building Industry Ass'n v. City of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  2. Lynch v. Cal. Coastal CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  3. People v. Overstock.com, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  4. 616 Croft Ave., LLC v. City of West HollywoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  5. California Building Industry Ass'n v. City of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API