CP&DR

Court Bars AG From Winning ‘Private Attorney General' Fees

May 29, 2007

CP&DR Staff, Legal Digest, Subdivision Map Act, Tehama County, Vol. 22 No. 06 Jun 2007

The state attorney general cannot recover fees under the Code of Civil Procedure's "private attorney general" provision, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled in a Tehama County case involving the Subdivision Map Act and the Williamson Act.

High Court Says New City May Deny Tentative Map Approved By County

by CP&DR Staff on Feb 1, 2007

Santa Barbara County, Subdivision Map Act

The newly incorporated City of Goleta had the authority to reject a final subdivision map after the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors had approved the tentative map for property that was in unincorporated territory at the time, the state Supreme Court has ruled. >>read more

Local Government Wins Old Map Fight

Mar 1, 2003

Featured Articles, Paul Shigley, Sonoma County, Subdivision Map Act, Vol. 18 No. 03 Mar 2003

In a landmark ruling, the state Supreme Court has made clear that maps recorded prior to 1893 do not create legal, developable lots for today's purposes. And the court at least hinted that maps recorded between 1893 and 1929 might not be valid unless a city or county somehow exercised discretion in approving the map.

State High Court Rejects Pre-1893 Subdivisions

Mar 1, 2003

Legal Digest, Paul Shigley, Solano County, Subdivision Map Act, Vol. 18 No. 03 Mar 2003

In its first ruling directly addressing the validity of "antiquated subdivisions," the California Supreme Court has held that maps recorded prior to adoption of the first precursor to the Subdivision Map Act in 1893 do not create legal parcels for today's purposes.