Legal Opinion
Gentry v. City of Murrieta
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 18, 1995No. E013126PublishedCited by 90 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RICHLI, J.
Appellant Rita Gentry (Gentry) raises virtually every conceivable objection under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) 1 to the approval by respondent City of Murrieta (City) of a plan of respondent McMillin Communities (McMillin) to build 198 homes. The City found that the project, as mitigated, would have no significant environmental effects; as a result, it adopted a mitigated negative declaration and approved the project. The trial court rejected Gentry’s objections.
We, too, reject the vast bulk of Gentry’s objections and…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by90 opinions
- State Water Resources Control Board CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- ASS'N OF IRRITATED RESIDENTS v. County of MaderaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho CordovaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
85 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.