Legal Opinion
McCormick v. Board of Supervisors
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 2, 1988No. A039081PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SMITH, J.
In San Franciscans For Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 498 [234 Cal.Rptr. 527], we held that Public Resources Code section 21167.4 (hereinafter section 21167.4) triggers mandatory dismissal of a petition for writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on the motion of a party or the court’s own motion where the petitioner does not request a hearing within 90 days of filing the petition. (Id., at p. 504.)
In this case we are called upon to decide what constitutes sufficient compliance with the “request for…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Viles v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Elston v. City of TurlockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- City of Ontario v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
- Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. PietakCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Coburn v. SievertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Hanooka v. PivkoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF RIVERSIDE CTY. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Dunn-Edwards Corp. v. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT.California Court of Appeal · 1992
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.