Legal Opinion · Dissent

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

California Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1986No. L.A. 32144Published

1DissentMosk, J.

I dissent.

The majority interpret the relevant statutory provisions properly, but they err in analyzing the complaint.

The law is clear that if a public agency makes substantial changes in a project after filing an environmental impact report (EIR) and fails to file the supplemental EIR those changes require, an action challenging the agency’s noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) “must be filed within 180 days of the time the plaintiff knew or should have known that the project under way differs substantially from the one described in the EIR.” Assuming arguendo…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Minsky v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Gonzales v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
  3. Sarro v. Retail Store Employees UnionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API