Legal Opinion

Bowman v. City of Petaluma

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 24, 1986No. A031120PublishedCited by 58 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CHANNELL, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in mandamus requiring the City of Petaluma (City) to set aside certain enactments approving a subdivision development. We hold that (1) the trial court erred by extending review of the City’s actions beyond the question whether they were supported by substantial evidence; and (2) analyzed by this standard, the City’s actions did not violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.).

I

Since 1980 appellant Daon Corporation (Daon) has owned approximately 151 contiguous acres of unimproved property on…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Bixby v. PiernoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Friends Of" B" Street v. City of HaywardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  4. Lewin v. St. Joseph Hospital of OrangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  5. Rural Landowners Assn. v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983

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

3Cited by58 opinions

  1. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010

53 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