18 California opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commissiongreen2 sentences2024Standards of review applicable to challenges to an agency’s compliance with CEQA When an appellant challenges whether an agency’s actions complied with CEQA, an “appellate court reviews the agency's action, not the trial court's decision; in that sense appellate judicial review [of an Agency’s action] under CEQA is de novo.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427 ; see Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 381 [“In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, our review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial 2023Standards of review applicable to challenges to an agency’s compliance with CEQA When an appellant challenges whether an agency’s actions complied with CEQA, an “appellate court reviews the agency's action, not the trial court's decision; in that sense appellate judicial review [of an Agency’s action] under CEQA is de novo.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427 ; see Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 381 [“In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, our review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial | 3 | 12 |
Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordovagreen2 sentences2024Standards of review applicable to challenges to an agency’s compliance with CEQA When an appellant challenges whether an agency’s actions complied with CEQA, an “appellate court reviews the agency's action, not the trial court's decision; in that sense appellate judicial review [of an Agency’s action] under CEQA is de novo.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427 ; see Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 381 [“In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, our review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial 2023Standards of review applicable to challenges to an agency’s compliance with CEQA When an appellant challenges whether an agency’s actions complied with CEQA, an “appellate court reviews the agency's action, not the trial court's decision; in that sense appellate judicial review [of an Agency’s action] under CEQA is de novo.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427 ; see Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 381 [“In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, our review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial | 2 | 5 |
Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of Californiagreen2 sentences2018"In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, [appellate] review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court's; we review the agency's action, not the trial court's decision. [Citations.]" ( Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372 , 381, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 , 160 P.3d 116 .) "[J]udicial review of agency decisions under CEQA is governed by sections 21168 (administrative mandamus) and 21168.5 (traditional mandamus)." ( Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 , 1135, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 2018"In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, [appellate] review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court's; we review the agency's action, not the trial court's decision. [Citations.]" ( Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372 , 381, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 , 160 P.3d 116 .) "[J]udicial review of agency decisions under CEQA is governed by sections 21168 (administrative mandamus) and 21168.5 (traditional mandamus)." ( Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 , 1135, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 | 2 | 2 |
San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Districtgreen2 sentences2015(San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1375 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128 ] (San Lorenzo).) Also, “[w]hen faced with a challenge to an agency’s exemption determination, the court considers whether the agency proceeded in the manner required by law and whether its determination is supported by substantial evidence.” (Id. at p. 1381.) II Baseline for the Project Under CEQA City contends the trial court erred by setting the baseline for the project under CEQA as of 2007 prior to the issuance of the 2010 emer 2015(San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1375 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128 ] (San Lorenzo).) Also, “[w]hen faced with a challenge to an agency’s exemption determination, the court considers whether the agency proceeded in the manner required by law and whether its determination is supported by substantial evidence.” (Id. at p. 1381.) II Baseline for the Project Under CEQA City contends the trial court erred by setting the baseline for the project under CEQA as of 2007 prior to the issuance of the 2010 emer | 2 | 2 |
Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council CA1/4green2 sentences2017Our review is de novo in the sense that "our review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court's; we review the agency's action, not the trial court's decision." ( Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372 , 381, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 , 160 P.3d 116 ; Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council, supra , 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 777 , 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 .) *209 The standard of review that applies to a public entity's decision under CEQA depends on the nature of the decision and when in the multi-tiered process it was made. 2017Our review is de novo in the sense that "our review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court's; we review the agency's action, not the trial court's decision." ( Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372 , 381, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 , 160 P.3d 116 ; Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council, supra , 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 777 , 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 .) *209 The standard of review that applies to a public entity's decision under CEQA depends on the nature of the decision and when in the multi-tiered process it was made. | 1 | 3 |
California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordovagreen1 sentence2023(Ibid.; Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 113-114 .) In conducting our own independent review for substantial evidence, we “ ‘ “may not set aside an agency’s approval of an EIR on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable,” for, on factual questions, our task “is not to weigh conflicting evidence and determine who has the better argument.” ’ ” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 512 .) Rather, we give “ ‘deference to the agency’s substantive factual conclusions.’ ” (Ibid.) “[T]he burden is on the party 14 cha | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2018(See Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372 , 381, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 , 160 P.3d 116 [courts "must bear in mind that '[t]he foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act "to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." ' [Citation.]"; see also Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232 , 1265, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 85 , 970 P.2d 872 (conc. opn. of Baxter, J.) ["The legislative authorization for issuance of a peremptory writ in the 2018(See Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372 , 381, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 , 160 P.3d 116 [courts "must bear in mind that '[t]he foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act "to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." ' [Citation.]"; see also Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232 , 1265, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 85 , 970 P.2d 872 (conc. opn. of Baxter, J.) ["The legislative authorization for issuance of a peremptory writ in the | 1 | 1 |
SANTA MONICA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE v. City of Santa Monicagreen2 sentences2016In that event, the agency must ensure that a full environmental impact report is prepared on the proposed project.” (Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 381 .) “In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, our review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court’s; we review the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision.” (Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 381 .) We review the City’s action for “ ‘a prejudicial abuse of discretion.’ ” (Ibid., quoting § 21168.5.) CEQA’s Definition of a Project CEQA defines a project (in part) as “[a]n activity directly undertake 2016In that event, the agency must ensure that a full environmental impact report is prepared on the proposed project.” (Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 381 .) “In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, our review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court’s; we review the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision.” (Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 381 .) We review the City’s action for “ ‘a prejudicial abuse of discretion.’ ” (Ibid., quoting § 21168.5.) CEQA’s Definition of a Project CEQA defines a project (in part) as “[a]n activity directly undertake | 1 | 1 |
Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beachgreen2 sentences2016In that event, the agency must ensure that a full environmental impact report is prepared on the proposed project.” (Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 381 .) “In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, our review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court’s; we review the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision.” (Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 381 .) We review the City’s action for “ ‘a prejudicial abuse of discretion.’ ” (Ibid., quoting § 21168.5.) CEQA’s Definition of a Project CEQA defines a project (in part) as “[a]n activity directly undertake 2016In that event, the agency must ensure that a full environmental impact report is prepared on the proposed project.” (Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 381 .) “In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, our review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court’s; we review the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision.” (Muzzy Ranch, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 381 .) We review the City’s action for “ ‘a prejudicial abuse of discretion.’ ” (Ibid., quoting § 21168.5.) CEQA’s Definition of a Project CEQA defines a project (in part) as “[a]n activity directly undertake | 1 | 1 |
Friends of Old Trees v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protectiongreen2 sentences2007(County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 66 ]; Friends of the Old Trees v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1393 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 297 ].) Throughout, we must bear in mind that “[t]he foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 3 2007(County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 66 ]; Friends of the Old Trees v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1393 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 297 ].) Throughout, we must bear in mind that “[t]he foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 3 | 1 | 1 |
County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agencygreen2 sentences2007(County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 66 ]; Friends of the Old Trees v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1393 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 297 ].) Throughout, we must bear in mind that “[t]he foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 3 2007(County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 66 ]; Friends of the Old Trees v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1393 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 297 ].) Throughout, we must bear in mind that “[t]he foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood
green
2 sentences2023Standard of Review on Appeal “ ‘In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, our review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court’s; we review the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision.’ (Muzzy Ranch[, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p.] 381.) Our review of the City’s action requires us to consider whether the City abused its discretion either (1) by failing to proceed in the manner required by law, or (2) by making a factual conclusion unsupported by substantial evidence. (§§ 21168, 21168.5; Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 131 .) We determi 2018III DISCUSSION "In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, our review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court's; we review the *664 agency's action, not the trial court's decision." ( Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372 , 381, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 , 160 P.3d 116 .) Our review of the City's action requires us to consider whether the City abused its discretion either (1) by failing to proceed in the manner required by law, or (2) by making a factual conclusion unsupported by substantial evidence. (§§ 21168, 21168.5; Save Tara | 3 | 2018–2023 |
Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange
green
1 sentence2023(Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1538, 1545 .) “[O]ur review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court’s; we review the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision.” (Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 381 .) And, thus, we are not bound by the trial court’s conclusions. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency
green
1 sentence2023Standard of Review on Appeal “ ‘In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, our review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court’s; we review the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision.’ (Muzzy Ranch[, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p.] 381.) Our review of the City’s action requires us to consider whether the City abused its discretion either (1) by failing to proceed in the manner required by law, or (2) by making a factual conclusion unsupported by substantial evidence. (§§ 21168, 21168.5; Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 131 .) We determi | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose
green
1 sentence2023(Ibid.; Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 113-114 .) In conducting our own independent review for substantial evidence, we “ ‘ “may not set aside an agency’s approval of an EIR on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable,” for, on factual questions, our task “is not to weigh conflicting evidence and determine who has the better argument.” ’ ” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 512 .) Rather, we give “ ‘deference to the agency’s substantive factual conclusions.’ ” (Ibid.) “[T]he burden is on the party 14 cha | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Sierra Club v. County of Fresno
green
1 sentence2023(Ibid.; Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 113-114 .) In conducting our own independent review for substantial evidence, we “ ‘ “may not set aside an agency’s approval of an EIR on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable,” for, on factual questions, our task “is not to weigh conflicting evidence and determine who has the better argument.” ’ ” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 512 .) Rather, we give “ ‘deference to the agency’s substantive factual conclusions.’ ” (Ibid.) “[T]he burden is on the party 14 cha | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego
green
1 sentence2023Standard of Review on Appeal “ ‘In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, our review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court’s; we review the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision.’ (Muzzy Ranch[, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p.] 381.) Our review of the City’s action requires us to consider whether the City abused its discretion either (1) by failing to proceed in the manner required by law, or (2) by making a factual conclusion unsupported by substantial evidence. (§§ 21168, 21168.5; Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 131 .) We determi | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of California
green
2 sentences2018"In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, [appellate] review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court's; we review the agency's action, not the trial court's decision. [Citations.]" ( Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372 , 381, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 , 160 P.3d 116 .) "[J]udicial review of agency decisions under CEQA is governed by sections 21168 (administrative mandamus) and 21168.5 (traditional mandamus)." ( Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 , 1135, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 2018"In a CEQA case, as in other mandamus cases, [appellate] review of the administrative record for error is the same as the trial court's; we review the agency's action, not the trial court's decision. [Citations.]" ( Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372 , 381, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 , 160 P.3d 116 .) "[J]udicial review of agency decisions under CEQA is governed by sections 21168 (administrative mandamus) and 21168.5 (traditional mandamus)." ( Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 , 1135, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi
green
1 sentence2018(Id. at p. 534; Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 308-310 .) Because SPOSFI nowhere argues that it was prejudiced by the exclusion of the unredacted documents from the record, we do not further consider this claim of error. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
San Francisco Tomorrow v. City & County of San Francisco
green
1 sentence2018(See San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498, 531 .) We presume the trial court’s order is correct; it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate not only that the exclusion of the material from the administrative record was error, but also that appellant was prejudiced by the error. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.
green
2 sentences1985(Citing Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28 [ 112 Cal. Rptr. 805 , 520 P.2d 29 ].) The trial court held that the evidence did not support Hittle's assertion that he was ignorant of his rights to file for disability retirement when he withdrew his contributions, because respondent had placed him on "specific notice" of these rights by its September 29, 1978, letter. 1985(Citing Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28 [ 112 Cal. Rptr. 805 , 520 P.2d 29 ].) The trial court held that the evidence did not support Hittle's assertion that he was ignorant of his rights to file for disability retirement when he withdrew his contributions, because respondent had placed him on "specific notice" of these rights by its September 29, 1978, letter. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.