Legal Opinion
People Ex Rel. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission v. Town of Emeryville
California Supreme Court
Decided November 13, 1968No. S. F. 22591PublishedCited by 107 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMosk, J.
On behalf of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (hereinafter BCDC), the Attorney General brought suit to enjoin certain fill operations by the Town of Emeryville on the ground that Emeryville had not obtained a BCDC permit as directed by the McAteer-Petris Act. (Gov. Code, § 66604.) The trial court concluded that Emeryville was not required to secure a permit because its fill operations were assertedly exempted under the “grandfather clause” in the BCDC enabling legislation. (Gov. Code, § 66632.1.) The court entered judgment for Emeryville and dissolved an…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. DicksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1841
- Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Application of the President and Directors of Georgetown College, Inc., a Body CorporateCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1964
- Mallon v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by107 opinions
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Friends of Mammoth v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Common Cause v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
102 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.