Cucamongans United for Reasonale Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WARD, J.
Plaintiff and appellant Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion (CURE) appeal from a judgment denying its petition for writ of administrative mandamus brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). 1
CURE contends that the trial court erred because new information and changes in the law and scientific standards warrant further environmental review. Real parties in interest Lauren Development, Inc. (Lauren) and Cristiano Partners I, and defendant and respondent City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) (collectively referred to as…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the BlindCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Lundquist v. ReusserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Benton v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. WoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of BakersfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Ragland v. U.S. Bank National Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Vernon v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- City of Hollister v. Monterey InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.