Legal Opinion
Neilson v. City of California City
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 9, 2007No. F049143PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DAWSON, J.
Appellants challenged the validity of redevelopment plan amendments adopted by respondents City of California City (City) and City of California City Redevelopment Agency (Redevelopment Agency) that resulted in the building of an automobile test track facility on desert land. Appellants claim Redevelopment Agency erroneously determined that the 24.4 square miles of vacant land added to the redevelopment area was urbanized and blighted within the meaning of California’s Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) (Health & Saf. Code, § 33000 et seq.). As a result, appellants contend,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Day v. City of FontanaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Garcia v. McCutchenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Hughes v. Board of Architectural ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Planning and Conservation League v. Department of Water ResourcesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Wilson & Wilson v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Davis v. Fresno Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- White v. CridlebaughCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- City of Fontana v. Cal. Dep't of Tax & Fee Admin., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.