Legal Opinion
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 7, 2009No. B204987PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SUZUKAWA, J.
On April 20, 2007, respondent Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 1 listed di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP) as a chemical known to cause reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 25249.5-25249.13), commonly known as Proposition 65. Appellant Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) sought a writ of mandate challenging OEHHA’s listing. The trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate, and Exxon appealed. Because we conclude that OEHHA did not abuse its discretion in listing DIDP as a chemical…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- People ex rel. Lungren v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Sierra Club v. State Board of ForestryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of Forestry & Fire ProtectionCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- California Chamber of Commerce v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Margarito v. State Athletic CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Mateel Envtl. Justice Found. v. Office of Envtl. Health Hazard Assessment, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Am. Chemistry Council v. Off. of Environ. Health Hazard AssessmentCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- American Chemistry Council v. Office of Environmental Health etc.California Court of Appeal · 2020
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.