Legal Opinion
Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 10, 2013No. B233318PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HOFFSTADT, J.*
Plaintiff Save Cuyama Valley (Save Cuyama) appeals from the judgment denying its petition for a writ of mandate. The County of Santa Barbara and its board of supervisors (collectively, the County) granted real party in interest Troesh Materials, Inc. (Troesh), permission to begin sand and gravel mining in the bed of the Cuyama River. Save Cuyama asks us to overturn that decision. Save Cuyama contends that the final revised environmental impact report (Report) that formed the basis for the County’s approval violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub.…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho CordovaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Gentry v. City of MurrietaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of HanfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Rominger v. County of ColusaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Aqualliance v. U.S. Bureau of ReclamationDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2018
- Golden Door Props., LLC v. Cnty. of San Diego, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Claremont Canyon Conservancy v. Regents of the U. of Cal.California Court of Appeal · 2023
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.