Legal Opinion

Littoral Development Co. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 17, 1995No. A064842PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PETERSON, P. J.

This is the third appeal in which we have dealt with legal issues arising from the anomalous status of a bayfront parcel owned by appellants Littoral Development Co. and Diversified Realty Services (hereafter jointly referred to as Littoral). Here, Littoral contends: (1) The bayward one-third of its parcel was not subject to the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), under the definition of Government Code 1 section 66610, as “marshland” lying lower than five feet in elevation; (2) BCDC’s enforcement actions constituted a…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Hensler v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
  5. Arcadia Unified School District v. State Department of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Allegretti & Co. v. County of ImperialCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. Loewenstein v. City of LafayetteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  4. Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API