8 California opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Board of Supervisorsgreen2 sentences2014(See Miller v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 539, 545, 548 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 136 ] [approving variance, when local agency found, among other things, that requiring adherence to zoning requirements “ ‘would destroy the aesthetic, architectural, and historic character and integrity,’ ” of the existing structure and would “destroy the property’s scenic beauty”].) In sum, we conclude that substantial evidence supports a finding that because of special characteristics applicable to Scurlock’s property, Scurlock would be at a disadvantage to other property owners in the Rl-10 zone if he w 2014(See Miller v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 539, 545, 548 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 136 ] [approving variance, when local agency found, among other things, that requiring adherence to zoning requirements “ ‘would destroy the aesthetic, architectural, and historic character and integrity,’ ” of the existing structure and would “destroy the property’s scenic beauty”].) In sum, we conclude that substantial evidence supports a finding that because of special characteristics applicable to Scurlock’s property, Scurlock would be at a disadvantage to other property owners in the Rl-10 zone if he w | 2 | 2 |
Ironwood Owners Assn. IX v. Solomongreen2 sentences2008IX v. Solomon (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 766, 772 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 18 ].) “The criteria for testing the reasonableness of an exercise of such a power by an owners’ association are (1) whether the reason for withholding approval is rationally related to the protection, preservation or proper operation of the property and the purposes of the Association as set forth in its governing instruments and (2) whether the power was exercised in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. [Citations.]” (Laguna Royale Owners Assn. v. Darger (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 670, 683-684 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 136 ].) Here there was evid 2008IX v. Solomon (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 766, 772 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 18 ].) “The criteria for testing the reasonableness of an exercise of such a power by an owners’ association are (1) whether the reason for withholding approval is rationally related to the protection, preservation or proper operation of the property and the purposes of the Association as set forth in its governing instruments and (2) whether the power was exercised in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. [Citations.]” (Laguna Royale Owners Assn. v. Darger (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 670, 683-684 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 136 ].) Here there was evid | 1 | 1 |
Laguna Royale Owners Assn. v. Dargergreen2 sentences2008IX v. Solomon (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 766, 772 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 18 ].) “The criteria for testing the reasonableness of an exercise of such a power by an owners’ association are (1) whether the reason for withholding approval is rationally related to the protection, preservation or proper operation of the property and the purposes of the Association as set forth in its governing instruments and (2) whether the power was exercised in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. [Citations.]” (Laguna Royale Owners Assn. v. Darger (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 670, 683-684 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 136 ].) Here there was evid 2008IX v. Solomon (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 766, 772 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 18 ].) “The criteria for testing the reasonableness of an exercise of such a power by an owners’ association are (1) whether the reason for withholding approval is rationally related to the protection, preservation or proper operation of the property and the purposes of the Association as set forth in its governing instruments and (2) whether the power was exercised in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. [Citations.]” (Laguna Royale Owners Assn. v. Darger (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 670, 683-684 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 136 ].) Here there was evid | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville
green
2 sentences2022(See, e.g., Friends of Lagoon Valley, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at pp. 824-830.) 15 Thus, as calculated by staff, by including 12 percent of its units as units affordable to very low-income residents, the Project was entitled to a 38.75 percent density bonus under the City’s regulations as they existed at the time the Project was approved.7 As applied, the result is that while the applicable zoning allowed a building on the Project site to include 147 dwelling units, the density bonus of 38.75 percent (or 57 units) allowed the Project to be built at an increased density of 204 residential units. 2022(See, e.g., Friends of Lagoon Valley, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at pp. 824-830.) 15 Thus, as calculated by staff, by including 12 percent of its units as units affordable to very low-income residents, the Project was entitled to a 38.75 percent density bonus under the City’s regulations as they existed at the time the Project was approved.7 As applied, the result is that while the applicable zoning allowed a building on the Project site to include 147 dwelling units, the density bonus of 38.75 percent (or 57 units) allowed the Project to be built at an increased density of 204 residential units. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2015For example, Committee to Save Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th 1168 involved a setback requirement, and substantial evidence supported an unnecessary hardship because much of the yard was below grade “rendering enforcement of the three-foot setback problematic” and potentially hazardous. 2015For example, Committee to Save Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th 1168 involved a setback requirement, and substantial evidence supported an unnecessary hardship because much of the yard was below grade “rendering enforcement of the three- foot setback problematic” and potentially hazardous. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Torres v. City of Montebello
green
1 sentence2025It is a well-settled rule that “ ‘ “[m]andamus will not lie to compel the performance of any act which would be void, illegal or contrary to public policy.” ’ ” (Torres v. City of Montebello (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 382, 403 .) “Because mandamus must operate in the present, an intervening change in law may moot or otherwise make such relief unavailable.” (Ibid.) After this action was filed, section 9-9.205 was amended and now contains an exception to the setback requirement that applies to Thompson. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.