Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 California opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Rodasgreen1 sentence2026(See People v. Rodas (2018) 6 Cal.5th 219, 240, fn. 8 (Rodas) [in determining feasibility, we consider “whether evidence exists both to show defendant’s competence at the time of trial and to permit defendant to respond fully to that showing, such that a fair and reliable determination that defendant was competent to stand trial could be made”], italics added.) At the feasibility hearing, Dr. Manohara was unavailable for cross-examination, and it is questionable whether Lightsey could effectively probe the nuances of the opinions offered by Dr. Velosa in 1994. | 1 | 1 |
California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruzgreen1 sentence2025(See Native Plant, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981.) Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s feasibility analysis, we find no abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedingsgreen1 sentence2025(See Goleta Valley, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 566-567.) “ ‘There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.’ ([Guidelines], § 15126.6, subd. (a).) The rule of reason ‘requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice’ and to ‘examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.’ (Id., § 15126.6, subd. (f).) An EIR does not have to consider alternatives ‘whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and wh | 1 | 1 |
American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovangreen2 sentences2021(American Textile, supra, at p. 510 [“Thus, cost-benefit analysis . . . is not required by the statute because feasibility analysis is”].) The Association’s arguments to the contrary are unconvincing. 2021(American Textile, supra, 452 U.S. at p. 509 .) Following the Supreme Court’s analysis in American Textile, we conclude that section 116365 requires the Board to conduct a feasibility analysis, not a cost-benefit analysis. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lightsey
green
2 sentences2018Applying the feasibility factors identified by the court in Lightsey, supra, 54 Cal.4th at page 710 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 , 279 P.3d 1072 , we have considered the lengthy period of time (22 years) that has passed since Galaviz's August 1996 trial. 2018Applying the feasibility factors identified by the court in Lightsey, supra, 54 Cal.4th at page 710 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 , 279 P.3d 1072 , we have considered the lengthy period of time (22 years) that has passed since Galaviz's August 1996 trial. | 3 | 2018–2026 |
Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2022Code, §§ 65590 & 65590.1) mandated local governments to “require developers to replace residential units, or pay an in-lieu fee, whenever they demolish or convert dwelling units occupied by low or moderate-income persons in the coastal zone.” (Venice Town Council, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 1552 .) Plaintiffs alleged the City misinterpreted the relevant law “by subjecting every decision to a feasibility standard,” and, notwithstanding a formal policy of complying with the Mello Act, “the City has an informal policy of nonenforcement in violation of the Mello act.” (Id. at p. 1565.) The Second 2022Code, §§ 65590 & 65590.1) mandated local governments to “require developers to replace residential units, or pay an in-lieu fee, whenever they demolish or convert dwelling units occupied by low or moderate-income persons in the coastal zone.” (Venice Town Council, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 1552 .) Plaintiffs alleged the City misinterpreted the relevant law “by subjecting every decision to a feasibility standard,” and, notwithstanding a formal policy of complying with the Mello Act, “the City has an informal policy of nonenforcement in violation of the Mello act.” (Id. at p. 1565.) The Second | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Haworth v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
green
1 sentence2026(See Haworth, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 385 ) However, we need not conclusively resolve which standard of review applies because we would not uphold the trial court’s feasibility determination even under an abuse of discretion standard. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Wycoff
green
1 sentence2026(Ibid.) We observed in Wycoff that the trial court there conducted “no timely . . . competency trial,” whereas the trial court in Lightsey’s case “conducted a timely competency trial” albeit 23 PEOPLE v. LIGHTSEY Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. without appointing counsel as statutorily required. ( Wycoff, supra, 12 Cal.5th at pp. 95, 96.) Because contemporaneous evidence was developed for the competency trial in Lightsey’s case, “we concluded that the trial court should at least consider whether a reliable retrospective competency determination might be feasible.” (Id. at p. 96, citing Lightse | 1 | 2026–2026 |
National Paint & Coatings Ass'n v. South Coast Air Quality Management District
green
1 sentence2009(See National Paint Association II, supra, 485 F.Supp.2d at p. 1158 .) "Feasible," however, is not the word the Legislature chose, and the court in National Paint Association II treated the paint association's feasibility challenge as an achievability challenge. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford
green
2 sentences2007First, an EIR is not the place for a discussion of fiscal factors, that analysis is for the public agency, based on substantial evidence. ( SFUDP, supra, 102 Cal. App.4th at pp. 689-692, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 .) Second, the cases petitioners cite do not support their claim, they simply hold that an applicant's view of economic feasibility is not determinative and the decision-maker must be provided with the basis for a feasibility opinion, so that it can make "`an independent, reasoned judgment.'" ( Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 735-736 , 270 Cal.Rptr. 65 2007First, an EIR is not the place for a discussion of fiscal factors, that analysis is for the public agency, based on substantial evidence. ( SFUDP, supra, 102 Cal. App.4th at pp. 689-692, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 .) Second, the cases petitioners cite do not support their claim, they simply hold that an applicant's view of economic feasibility is not determinative and the decision-maker must be provided with the basis for a feasibility opinion, so that it can make "`an independent, reasoned judgment.'" ( Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 735-736 , 270 Cal.Rptr. 65 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco
green
1 sentence2007First, an EIR is not the place for a discussion of fiscal factors, that analysis is for the public agency, based on substantial evidence. ( SFUDP, supra, 102 Cal. App.4th at pp. 689-692, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 .) Second, the cases petitioners cite do not support their claim, they simply hold that an applicant's view of economic feasibility is not determinative and the decision-maker must be provided with the basis for a feasibility opinion, so that it can make "`an independent, reasoned judgment.'" ( Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 735-736 , 270 Cal.Rptr. 65 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.