Legal Opinion
Boelts v. City of Lake Forest
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 24, 2005No. G033549PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SILLS, P. J.
I. SUMMARY
California’s Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, § 33000 et seq. 1 ) requires a finding that a project area is blighted in order to establish a redevelopment plan. (§ 33367, subd. (d)(1); e.g., Sweetwater Valley Civic Assn. v. City of National City (1976) 18 Cal.3d 270, 277 [133 Cal.Rptr. 859, 555 P.2d 1099] [“To allow redevelopment under the CRL, the proposed area must be blighted.”]; Beach-Courchesne v. City of Diamond Bar (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 388, 389 [95 Cal.Rptr.2d 265] [“A determination of blight is a prerequisite to invoking redevelopment.”].)
T…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. MidkiffSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
- California Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Board of Rialto Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Armendariz v. PenmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- People v. MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Del Cerro Mobile Estates v. City of PlacentiaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- FONTANA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY v. TorresCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Neilson v. City of California CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Blue v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.