Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Travis v. County of Santa Cruz

California Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 2004No. S109597Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BROWN, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur with the majority’s conclusion that Steven Travis’s action challenging the validity of the conditions imposed by the County of Santa Cruz (hereafter County) on his development permit is timely and that Travis can raise a facial attack on the ordinance’s validity under Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(E). However, although the majority disclaims any such intent, its treatment of the constitutional claims effectively puts an “expiration date” on fundamental guarantees. (See Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) 533 U.S. 606 [150 L.Ed.2d…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Wilson v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Palazzolo v. Rhode IslandSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  3. Hensler v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Rider v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991

4 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