In a very strongly worded opinion, a Los Angeles appellate court shot down all the neighbors' arguments about an eldercare facility in Pacific Palisades -- and, in the process, reiterated that the role of the courts is to defer to the city’s judgment when substantial evidence exists and not "re-weigh the evidence". 

History would suggest that the answer is no. It's more likely that the Legislature will punch a couple of holes in the law and plaintiffs' lawyers will continue to figure out how to get around the holes.

An EIR from Grass Valley failed because the project would put multifamily units 170 feet from a state highway and the city didn't analyze the air pollution impact.

26-foot statue in the middle of a street in Palm Springs also violates the state's Motor Vehicle Code, an appellate ocurt rules.

Final ruling in People's Park case turns around on one issue and softens the argument on the other -- but prompts Newsom to vow CEQA reform.

An Arcadia homeowner wanted to stop the expansion of his neighbor's home. He took it to the Court of Appeal -- but he wasn't specific enough in his original comments before the city's planning commission and city council.

Appellate judges say that density transfer creates potential environmental impacts and therefore an "excxeption to the exemption" under Berkeley Hillside is warranted.

San Diego judge's decision also faults the City of San Diego for not analyzing cumuative impacts of several adjacent projects.

Still, some jurists still focus on expanding the law, creating a kind of schism in the appellate courts. Will the Legislature step in to clarify? Not likely.

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.