Legal Opinion
Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 25, 2006No. B175149PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PERREN, J.
The owner of a six-acre parcel in Summerland filed an application to subdivide that property, which is zoned for a single-family residence, into two 3-acre parcels. As presently configured, two residences could conceivably be developed on the parcel. The County of Santa Barbara (County) determined, however, that the property was subject to development restrictions pursuant to state laws and local regulations enacted for the protection of wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas. After identifying two artificially created wetlands totaling approximately one-fifth…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning AgencySupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Palazzolo v. Rhode IslandSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Shaw v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- McAllister v. California Coastal CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Everett v. State Farm General InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- State v. Cont'l Ins. Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of NevadaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.