Legal Opinion
Bowman v. California Coastal Commission
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 23, 2014No. B243015APublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GILBERT, P. J.
In Kleinecke v. Montecito Water Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 240 [195 Cal.Rptr. 58], we held it would not be inequitable to apply the doctrine of estoppel as a defense to the statute of limitations. Here we conclude it would be inequitable to apply collateral estoppel to require a party to dedicate a coastal easement as a condition of obtaining a coastal development permit.
We reverse a judgment denying a property owner’s petition for a writ of administrative mandate to eliminate a public access condition from a coastal development permit.
FACTS
Walton Emmick owned…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Dolan v. City of TigardSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- County of Imperial v. McDougalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Patrick Media Group, Inc. v. California Coastal CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Kleinecke v. Montecito Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kretowicz v. Cal. Coastal Commission CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2015