Legal Opinion

Bickel v. City of Piedmont

California Supreme Court

Decided November 20, 1997No. S048396PublishedCited by 98 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KENNARD, J.

In 1977, the Legislature enacted the Permit Streamlining Act. (Gov. Code, § 65920 et seq.; all statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.) The act, as relevant here, has certain time limits within which a government agency must either approve or disapprove an application for a development project. (§ 65950 et seq.) Failure to act within these time limits “shall be deemed approval of the permit application for the development project.” (§ 65956, subd. (b).)

Does the act prohibit an applicant’s waiver of the time limits? We conclude that it does…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge, Higway & Transportation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979

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

3Cited by98 opinions

  1. Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Roby v. McKesson Corp.California Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Cassim v. Allstate InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  4. South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1999
  5. Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006

93 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