Legal Digest

Court found that developer had not pursued all administrative remedies before suing.

Among other things, the appellate ruling found that Livermore's design standards are not objective and therefore cannot be used to deny an affordable housing project.

But appellate justices say state was correct that aesthetics is a subjective matter and not inherently a significant impact.

100% affordable project can't be struck down based on subjective standards or lack of strict adherence to specific plan policies. CEQA exemption based on Downtown Specific Plan was also upheld.

Developer's ignorance of appeals process means administrative remedies were not exhausted.

Appellate court rejected anti-SLAPP motion, saying San Anselmo lawsuit was meritless and lawyer was "indifferent".

Tentative People's Park ruling raises specter of NIMBYs using demographic information to challenge projects.

In yet another loss, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation had tried to overturn every land-use decision the City of Los Angeles made while corrupt councilmembers were on the land use committee.

In striking down Capitol Annex EIR, Third District tells the state which visuals to use and which alternatives to examine.

In both cases, community groups' efforts to use CEQA failed.

The latest twist in the strange tale of Terraces of Lafayette could have huge implications statewide.

Reversing lower court, appellate panel rules that San Francisco erred in saying high school stadium lights can be exempted from CEQA.

Short-term rental ordinance in Pacific Grove doesn't infringe on vested rights; Petaluma apartment building EIR upheld.

Judge rules that University of California acted properly under CEQA in approving project on "East Meadow" site. Citizen group's expert real estate analysis was not sufficient to combat the decision.