Legal Opinion
Moss v. County of Humboldt
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 7, 2008No. A114205, A114622PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McGUINESS, P. J.
These two appeals require us to decide the appropriate level of review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1 for a subdivision project that was initially approved with a mitigated negative declaration but later languished in litigation for so long that its tentative map expired. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Humboldt (County) determined an environmental impact report (EIR) is now required for the subdivision, either because it should be considered as a new project under CEQA or because new information suggests the existence of potential…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Citizens Ass'n for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of InyoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Sierra Club v. County of SonomaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Bowman v. City of PetalumaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
- Silverado Modjeska Recreation & Park District v. County of OrangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Latinos Unidos De Napa v. City of NapaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environment Development v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.