An en banc panel of the Ninth U.S. District Court of Appeals has upheld an Indian tribe's right to regulate timber harvesting on privately owned land within an Indian reservation. The ruling was a reversal of a ruling issued last year by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, and an affirmation of the district court's original decision (see CP&DR Legal Digest, November 2000).
The case involved a small timber harvest in the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation in Humboldt County. The Hoopa Valley Tribal Council determined that Roberta Bugenig, a non-Indian who owns fee title property within the reservation, could not harvest trees on her land, which is near a ceremonial site.
Bugenig sued in federal court, arguing that the Tribal Council did not have jurisdiction over her property. U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken ruled for the tribe. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed Wilken, holding that Congress did not give specific authority to the Hoopa Valley Tribe.
But in an 8-3 ruling, a full panel of Ninth Circuit judges reversed the decision again. In the latest ruling, the court held that the congressionally approved Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act of 1988 gave the Hoopa Valley Tribe's constitution the full force of law. The tribe's constitution makes clear that the Tribe has jurisdiction over all lands within the confines of its reservation established in 1876, the court also held. Bugenig's land falls within those confines.
The case is Roberta Bugenig v. Hoopa Valley Tribe, No. 99-15654, 01 C.D.O.S. 7999 and was filed on September 11, 2001.
A city resolution restricting parking on certain residential streets to residents with parking permits was categorically exempt from environmental review, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
An exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act for construction of a sea wall below two houses has been upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the potential collapse of a bluff could threaten public safety and qualified for an emergency exemption under CEQA.
In a case that touched on redevelopment law, the California Environmental Quality Act and general plan compatibility, an appellate court has upheld San Francisco's handling of a project on the site of the historic Emporium department store.
The City of Los Angeles was correct to treat as one project a builder's various proposals for 21 new houses on existing parcels on two streets, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected the builder's contention that the city could not demand an environmental impact report on the 21 houses, five of which have already been built.
Opponents of a proposed recycling center were too late in filing a lawsuit regarding a city's failure to prepare an environmental study on the city's sale of land to the recycling company, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The owner of appropriative water rights to a creek cannot exercise those rights in violation of state regulations intended to protect fish and wildlife, the Third District Court of Appeal has decided.
When a public agency acquires a property via eminent domain, only a trial court judge -- and not a jury -- can decide whether a business should receive compensation for loss of goodwill, a state appellate court has ruled.
The California Coastal Commission's decision to allow Malibu property owners who are building new houses to exchange existing public view corridors on their property for dedication of an off-site public access to the beach has been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does have the authority to regulate placement of radio antennas, but the city cannot deny a use permit for an antenna solely because the antenna would be used for commercial purposes, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
A doughnut shop owner who remained in his place of business for six years after the city acquired the property for redevelopment still qualified for relocation benefits as a "displaced person," the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
A school district may charge only limited mitigation fees on a redevelopment project in which new houses replace demolished residential units, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has concluded. The court held that the Tustin Unified School District could levy fees only on the difference in square footage between old apartments and the new houses that replaced the apartments.
A City of Cotati lawsuit against mobile home park owners who challenged the city's rent control ordinance was not a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), the state Supreme Court has ruled unanimously.