CP&DR

Sign Owner's due Process Claim Is 20 Years Too Late, Court Rules

May 1, 2001

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 16 No. 05 May 2001

An advertising company should have challenged Caltrans' mid-1970s cancellation of billboard permits many years ago, the First District Court of Appeal ruled in March. The court rejected the company's attempt to revive the permits on grounds that the permits were not properly canceled in the first place.

State Supreme Court Ends Review of San Diego Tax Case

May 1, 2001

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 16 No. 05 May 2001

The California Supreme Court has dropped its review of a business tax case from San Diego after deciding the court should not hear the case after all. The action means that the Fourth District Court of Appeal decision that exempted a tax on residential rentals from Proposition 218 remains in effect. However, the opinion will go unpublished.

District Loses Colorado River Claim

May 1, 2001

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 16 No. 05 May 2001

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's ruling against the Mohave Valley Irrigation & Drainage District in a water rights battle against the Interior Department. At dispute was an allegedly ambiguous contract regarding the western Arizona district's Colorado River water rights.

Development Opponents Lose Fight Over City's creation of Cul-de-Sac

May 1, 2001

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 16 No. 05 May 2001

The City of West Hollywood had the authority under the Vehicle Code to turn a through road into a cul-de-sac to accommodate a development, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected project opponents' contention that the city had to prove that the street was no longer needed for vehicular traffic.

Court Says Santa Monica Cannot Limit ‘Granny Units' to Grandma

May 1, 2001

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 16 No. 05 May 2001

A Santa Monica law limiting occupancy of second units to relatives and domestic employees has been thrown out by the Second District Court of Appeal. The unanimous three-judge panel ruled that the city's second-unit ordinance violated privacy and equal protection rights.

Billboard Developer's Big Hurry Gets Slowed by Appellate Panel

May 1, 2001

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 16 No. 05 May 2001

A billboard company jumped the gun when it claimed two of its proposed signs were "deemed approved" because of delays by the City of Los Angeles, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The unanimous three-judge panel upheld a trial court's dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Eller Media Company.

Council-Sponsored Initiative Must Undergo CEQA Review: No Exemption for City-Sanctioned Measure, Cal

May 1, 2001

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 16 No. 05 May 2001

Ballot measures generated and placed before voters by a public agency are not exempt from environmental review, a unanimous state Supreme Court has ruled.

Court Demands Better Analysis Of Project's Water Usage

Apr 1, 2001

California Environmental Quality Act, CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Monterey County, Vol. 16 No. 04 Apr 2001

Environmental review of a 109-unit subdivision on a 900-acre parcel in Carmel Valley was inadequate, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court concluded that in overturning the Monterey County Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, the Board of Supervisors used information about the project's water supply that had been introduced at the end of the environmental review process and had not been sufficiently analyzed or reviewed by the public.

Supreme Court upholds EPA's Process for Setting Air Standards

Apr 1, 2001

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 16 No. 04 Apr 2001

In what most observers called a major victory for environmentalists and federal regulatory agencies, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's practice of not considering costs when setting air quality standards.

Court Properly Blocked Initiative from ballot, Appellate Panel Rules

Apr 1, 2001

Legal Digest, other, Vol. 16 No. 04 Apr 2001

A San Diego Superior Court judge properly removed from the ballot a 1999 initiative seeking to kill implementation of the deal between the City of San Diego and the Padres baseball team for a new stadium. The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1, ruled that the initiative interfered with administrative actions of the city government, rather than legislative actions. Administrative actions may not be placed before the voters. In making the decision, the court said its ruling rendered

Articles