Legal Opinion
Healing v. California Coastal Commission
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 22, 1994No. B074129PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
acre lot in the Santa Monica Mountains, overlooking Tuna Canyon and the Pacific Ocean. What he had in mind was building a modest, three-bedroom home for his family. What he got was a long-term nightmare.
Facts
Healing’s property (located at 2640 South Chard Avenue, in the County of Los Angeles) is within the inland boundaries of the coastal zone and is regulated by the California Coastal Act of 1976, section 30000 et seq. of the Public Resources Code. 1 Although some parts of Tuna Canyon are undeveloped, the same cannot be said of the area around Healing’s lot. There are at least three…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Hensler v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- McAllister v. California Coastal CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Golden Gate Water Ski Club v. County of Contra CostaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Monks v. City of Rancho Palos VerdesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.