Legal Opinion
Resource Defense Fund v. County of Santa Cruz
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 14, 1982No. Civ. 47999PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BARRY-DEAL, J.—
Summary
We hold that issuance by the state Office of Planning and Research of an extension of time for completion of an adequate general plan (Gov. Code, § 65302.6 1 ) does not validate or immunize a city’s or county’s prior approval of land use permits from the requirement of conformity to a valid general plan.
Statement of the Case
On May 15, 1979, 2 petitioners (Resource Defense Fund, an environmental association, and Mary Hammer, a citizen taxpayer of respondent county) filed a petition for writ of mandate and injunctive relief. In their first cause of action…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Youngblood v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Walter Camp v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- McMillan v. American General Finance Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1976
- Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Hensler v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Neighborhood Action Group v. County of CalaverasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Garat v. City of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.