6 California opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Commissiongreen2 sentences2018Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. ), 1 but that the SLC violated the public trust doctrine by approving the project without considering whether the sand mining leases were a proper use of public trust lands. ( San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Com. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 202 , 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 880 ( Baykeeper I ).) After Baykeeper I was decided, the superior court issued a preemptory writ directing the SLC to reconsider the sand mining project in light of the common law public trust doctrine. 2018Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. ), 1 but that the SLC violated the public trust doctrine by approving the project without considering whether the sand mining leases were a proper use of public trust lands. ( San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Com. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 202 , 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 880 ( Baykeeper I ).) After Baykeeper I was decided, the superior court issued a preemptory writ directing the SLC to reconsider the sand mining project in light of the common law public trust doctrine. | 1 | 3 |
National Audubon Society v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2014(See generally Marks v. Whitney (1971) 6 Cal.3d 251, 259-261 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 790 , 491 P.2d 374 ].) Under the common law public trust doctrine, the state has title as trustee to all tidelands and is charged with “ ‘the preservation of those lands in their natural state, so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.’ [Citation.]” (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 434-435 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 346 2014(See generally Marks v. Whitney (1971) 6 Cal.3d 251, 259-261 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 790 , 491 P.2d 374 ].) Under the common law public trust doctrine, the state has title as trustee to all tidelands and is charged with “ ‘the preservation of those lands in their natural state, so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.’ [Citation.]” (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 434-435 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 346 | 1 | 2 |
Marks v. Whitneygreen2 sentences2014(See generally Marks v. Whitney (1971) 6 Cal.3d 251, 259-261 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 790 , 491 P.2d 374 ].) Under the common law public trust doctrine, the state has title as trustee to all tidelands and is charged with “ ‘the preservation of those lands in their natural state, so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.’ [Citation.]” (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 434-435 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 346 2014(See generally Marks v. Whitney (1971) 6 Cal.3d 251, 259-261 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 790 , 491 P.2d 374 ].) Under the common law public trust doctrine, the state has title as trustee to all tidelands and is charged with “ ‘the preservation of those lands in their natural state, so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.’ [Citation.]” (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 434-435 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 346 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection
green
2 sentences2018The County argues that " EPIC held that the 'common law' public trust doctrine does not apply in defining an agency's regulatory duties where the Legislature has enacted a statute defining the agency's duties." But the case did not hold that the state's wildlife protection statutes supersede the common law public trust doctrine regarding water or fish; it merely held that the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's statutory duty to comply with wildlife protection statutes should not be equated with a public trust duty. ( Id. at pp. 515-516, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 28 , 187 P.3d 888 .) Thus, we ag 2018We independently review the record, applying the same standards of review as the trial court. ( Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459 , 479, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 28 , 187 P.3d 888 .) Generally, an agency's regulatory approval is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which is established if the agency failed to comply with required procedures or made findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. ( *522 Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection , supra , 44 Cal.4th a | 3 | 2018–2018 |
County of Orange v. Heim
green
2 sentences2018We independently review the record, applying the same standards of review as the trial court. ( Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459 , 479, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 28 , 187 P.3d 888 .) Generally, an agency's regulatory approval is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which is established if the agency failed to comply with required procedures or made findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. ( *522 Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection , supra , 44 Cal.4th a 2018We independently review the record, applying the same standards of review as the trial court. ( Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459 , 479, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 28 , 187 P.3d 888 .) Generally, an agency's regulatory approval is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which is established if the agency failed to comply with required procedures or made findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. ( *522 Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection , supra , 44 Cal.4th a | 2 | 2018–2018 |
I. E. Associates v. Safeco Title Insurance
green
2 sentences2018Associates, supra , at p. 285, 216 Cal.Rptr. 438 , 702 P.2d 596 .) The County insists (1) the general rule does not apply because no court has found a duty under the public trust doctrine to regulate groundwater, and (2) SGMA is a comprehensive statutory scheme reflecting the Legislature's intent to occupy the field of groundwater management and the statute, therefore, does supplant the common law public trust doctrine. 2018Associates, supra , at p. 285, 216 Cal.Rptr. 438 , 702 P.2d 596 .) The County insists (1) the general rule does not apply because no court has found a duty under the public trust doctrine to regulate groundwater, and (2) SGMA is a comprehensive statutory scheme reflecting the Legislature's intent to occupy the field of groundwater management and the statute, therefore, does supplant the common law public trust doctrine. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Citizens for East Shore Parks v. State Lands Commission
green
2 sentences2018We independently review the record, applying the same standards of review as the trial court. ( Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459 , 479, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 28 , 187 P.3d 888 .) Generally, an agency's regulatory approval is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which is established if the agency failed to comply with required procedures or made findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. ( *522 Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection , supra , 44 Cal.4th a 2018We independently review the record, applying the same standards of review as the trial court. ( Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459 , 479, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 28 , 187 P.3d 888 .) Generally, an agency's regulatory approval is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which is established if the agency failed to comply with required procedures or made findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. ( *522 Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection , supra , 44 Cal.4th a | 2 | 2018–2018 |
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.