Legal Opinion
Feduniak v. California Coastal Commission
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 27, 2007No. H028931PublishedCited by 63 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RUSHING, P. J.
Introduction
In this case, we conclude that the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not bar the California Coastal Commission from ordering a coastal homeowner to remove a private three-hole golf course from around the house and restore the area to its native sand dune vegetation in accordance with applicable restrictions on landscaping.
Statement of the Case
In 2002, the California Coastal Commission (Commission) issued cease-and-desist and restoration orders, directing plaintiffs Robert and Maureen Feduniak (the Feduniaks) to remove the three-hole pitch-and-putt golf…
2Cases cited58 opinions
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- City of Long Beach v. MansellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Driscoll v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Blank v. CoffinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Lantzy v. Centex HomesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire Retirement SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- McAllister v. California Coastal CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- Schafer v. City of Los Angeles CA2/3California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Minish v. Hanuman FellowshipCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.