Cal. Codes » Public Resources Code / DIVISION 13. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY / CHAPTER 1. Policy
California Codes

Cal. Public Resources Code § 21005 (2026)

Policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions of this division which precludes relevant information from being presented to the public agency, or noncompliance with substantive requirements of this division, may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion within the meaning of Sections 21168 and 21168.5, regardless of whether a different outcome would have resulted if the public agency had complied with those provisions.

(b)It is the intent of the Legislature that, in undertaking judicial review pursuant to Sections 21168 and 21168.5, courts shall continue to follow the established principle that there is no presumption that error is prejudicial.

(c)It is further the intent of the Legislature that any court, which finds, or, in the process of reviewing a previous court finding, finds, that a public agency has taken an action without compliance with this division, shall specifically address each of the alleged grounds for noncompliance.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1990–1992 · leading case: Kings Cnty. Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kings Cnty. Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). “Public Resources Code section 21005 provides noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions of CEQA may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion.”
Sierra Club v. Contra Costa Cnty., 10 Cal. App. 4th 1212 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). “As the County notes, Public Resources Code section 21005 provides that a reviewing court shall not presume prejudice from error.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.