Cal. Codes » Public Resources Code / DIVISION 13. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY / CHAPTER 6. Limitations
California Codes

Cal. Public Resources Code § 21168.5 (2026)

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

In any action or proceeding, other than an action or proceeding under Section 21168, to attack, review, set aside, void or annul a determination, finding, or decision of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with this division, the inquiry shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1976–2019 · leading case: Friends of Eel River v. Sonoma Cnty. Water Agency, 134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 322 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Friends of Eel River v. Sonoma Cnty. Water Agency, 134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 322 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “"`[I]n reviewing agency actions under CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21168.5 provides that a court's inquiry "shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.”
W. States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court, 888 P.2d 1268 (Cal. 1995). “5 is the appropriate remedy; if no hearing of any kind was required by law, Public Resources Code section 21168.5 applies and traditional mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 is the appropriate remedy.”
Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Napa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 579 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “Standard of Review An agency’s certification of an EIR is subject to judicial review, but “[i]n reviewing agency actions under CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21168.5 provides that a court’s inquiry ‘shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.”
Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors, 801 P.2d 1161 (Cal. 1990). “) In reviewing agency actions under CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21168.5 provides that a court’s inquiry “shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.”
Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, 19 P.3d 567 (Cal. 2001). “This is consistent with the traditional use of mandamus to correct an abuse of discretion by a board or agency and implements section 21005, which provides that “noncompliance with substantive requirements of this division, may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion within…”
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6212 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). “If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees. [Citations.”
City of Hayward v. Trs. of the California State Univ., 242 Cal. App. 4th 833 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “5 provides: “In any action or proceeding, other than an action or proceeding under Section 21168, to attack, review, set aside, void or annul a determination, finding, or decision of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with this division, the inquiry shall extend…”
San Diegans for Open Gov't v. City of San Diego, 242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 541 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “The City Properly Concluded That the Approval of the Restated Lease Was Exempt From CEQA On April 22, 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution determining that the approval of the Restated Lease was categorically exempt from CEQA environmental review under the exemption for…”
East Peninsula Educ. Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified Sch. Dist., 210 Cal. App. 3d 155 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). “5 Public Resources Code section 21168.5 provides that where no administrative hearing is required, as in the case at bar, judicial review “shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion,” which is established “if the agency has not proceeded in a manner…”
Centinela Hosp. Assn. v. City of Inglewood, 90 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8977 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). “IV CEQA Claim (Second Cause of Action) Appellant maintains that the City’s notice of exemption and finding that the project was categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA are invalid as the facility does not fall within the type of projects described in Guidelines…”
Riverwatch v. Cnty. of San Diego, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 322 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). “Judicial Review “Public Resources Code section 21168.5 sets forth the applicable standard of review.”
A Local & Reg'l Monitor v. City of Los Angeles, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4439 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). “’ Thus, the reviewing court ‘ “does not pass upon the correctness of the EIR’s environmental conclusions, but only upon its sufficiency as an informative document.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
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.