Legal Opinion

Rominger v. County of Colusa

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 9, 2014No. C073815PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ROBIE, J.

In this mandamus action under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, 1 § 21000 et seq.), plaintiffs Elaine and Gerald Rominger challenged a mitigated negative declaration approved by defendant Colusa County with respect to a subdivision proposed by real party in interest Adams Group Inc. The trial court denied the Romingers’ petition based on the conclusion that, notwithstanding the county’s approval of a mitigated negative declaration, the county’s “action in approving the subdivision map was not a project for CEQA purposes and [thus] no review…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Horn v. County of VenturaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Citizens Ass'n for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of InyoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  3. Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Gentry v. City of MurrietaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  5. Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Sierra Club v. County of FresnoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
  2. Union of Med. Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  3. Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. California Building Industry Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Management DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016

22 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