Legal Opinion

Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Ass'n

California Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1986No. L.A. 32144PublishedCited by 66 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

REYNOSO, J.

What may a citizens’ group do when a stadium is constructed in their neighborhood substantially different than planned? The citizens charge that the changes were made without notice and that they did not know of the changes, and could not through the exercise of reasonable diligence have discovered them, until the first and overly noisy concert took place. On those facts, does the California Environmental Quality Act protect the citizens? We hold that it does.

The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq., hereafter CEQA)1 provides that a…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Friends of Mammoth v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
  3. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Perdue v. Crocker National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Minsky v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by66 opinions

  1. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010

61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API