Legal Opinion
Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton
California Supreme Court
Decided April 1, 2010No. S159690PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BAXTER, J.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA or Act; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) 1 seeks to ensure that public agencies will consider the environmental consequences of discretionary projects they propose to carry out or approve. On the other hand, the Act is sensitive to the particular need for finality and certainty in land use planning decisions. Accordingly, the Act provides “unusually short” limitations periods (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines), 15112, subd. (a)) after which persons may no longer mount legal challenges, however…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Chase Securities Corp. v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
- Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Miklosy v. Regents of the University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Hensler v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A.California Supreme Court · 2010
- Tomlinson v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- May v. City of MilpitasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of StocktonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Citizens for a Green San Mateo v. San Mateo County Community College DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.