Legal Opinion
County of Orange v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 7, 2003No. G032843PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SILLS, P. J.
We have before us a hard fought writ proceeding over, of all things, the contents of an administrative record in a CEQA case. At the behest of the project opponents, the trial judge excluded items which, as we show below, are required by law to be in that record.
We now grant the petition to require their inclusion. Petitioners have no adequate remedy at law. In CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) cases time is money. A project opponent can “win” even though it “loses” in an eventual appeal because the sheer extra time required for the unnecessary appeal (with the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Aas v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. HenslerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Protect Our Water v. County of MercedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of EurekaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of StocktonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- Jsm Tuscany, LLC v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of VacavilleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of MaderaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.