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.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1959–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carsongreen2 sentences2012(Id. at pp. 1491, 1492.) The court opined that “the contents of the survey, as opposed to its mere existence, are relevant to the approval process.” (Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 1505 .) It relied on the provision of subdivision (d) that the survey results are “ ‘to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing ....’” (Colony Cove, at p. 1505.) The court held, however, that the ordinance “conflicts with section 66427.5 by ‘deviating from the state-mandated criteria’ and adding to the ‘exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5.’ [C 2012(Id. at pp. 1491, 1492.) The court opined that “the contents of the survey, as opposed to its mere existence, are relevant to the approval process.” (Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 1505 .) It relied on the provision of subdivision (d) that the survey results are “ ‘to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing ....’” (Colony Cove, at p. 1505.) The court held, however, that the ordinance “conflicts with section 66427.5 by ‘deviating from the state-mandated criteria’ and adding to the ‘exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5.’ [C | 1 | 2 |
Lynch v. Glassgreen2 sentences2010(See Lynch v. Glass (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 943, 947 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 139 ] [“A *1509 party cannot assert a prior adjudication against another who was not a party or in privity with a party to the prior action.”].) As for Colony Cove’s request, we find nothing in the Carson Harbor decision to estop the City from arguing that section 66427.5 permits it to consider the resident survey results at the subdivision map hearing. 2010(See Lynch v. Glass (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 943, 947 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 139 ] [“A *1509 party cannot assert a prior adjudication against another who was not a party or in privity with a party to the prior action.”].) As for Colony Cove’s request, we find nothing in the Carson Harbor decision to estop the City from arguing that section 66427.5 permits it to consider the resident survey results at the subdivision map hearing. | 1 | 1 |
County of Los Angeles v. Hoegreen2 sentences1959(County of Los Angeles v. Hoe, 138 Cal.App.2d 74, 80 [ 291 P.2d 98 ], People v. Loop, 127 Cal.App.2d 786, 800 [ 274 P. 2d 885 ].) The appellant urges that the refusal of the court to give a requested instruction concerning the subdivision map was error. 1959(County of Los Angeles v. Hoe, 138 Cal.App.2d 74, 80 [ 291 P.2d 98 ], People v. Loop, 127 Cal.App.2d 786, 800 [ 274 P. 2d 885 ].) The appellant urges that the refusal of the court to give a requested instruction concerning the subdivision map was error. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Loopgreen2 sentences1959(County of Los Angeles v. Hoe, 138 Cal.App.2d 74, 80 [ 291 P.2d 98 ], People v. Loop, 127 Cal.App.2d 786, 800 [ 274 P. 2d 885 ].) The appellant urges that the refusal of the court to give a requested instruction concerning the subdivision map was error. 1959(County of Los Angeles v. Hoe, 138 Cal.App.2d 74, 80 [ 291 P.2d 98 ], People v. Loop, 127 Cal.App.2d 786, 800 [ 274 P. 2d 885 ].) The appellant urges that the refusal of the court to give a requested instruction concerning the subdivision map was error. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs
green
2 sentences2014In an uncodified statement of legislative intent, the Legislature explained: “ ‘It is the intent of the Legislature to address the conversion of a mobilehome park to resident ownership that is not a bona fide resident conversion, as described by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado [, supra,] 96 Cal.App.4th 1153 . 2014In an uncodified statement of legislative intent, the Legislature explained: “It is the intent of the Legislature to address the conversion of a mobilehome park to resident ownership that is not a bona fide resident conversion, as described by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado[, supra,] 96 Cal.App.4th 1153 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Goldstone v. County of Santa Cruz
green
2 sentences2014Construing the statute to eliminate the power of local entities and agencies to consider the results of the survey when processing a conversion application would consign the ‘to be considered’ language of subdivision (d)(5) to surplusage.” —Goldstone, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at page 1054 Goldstone held the local agency may consider the survey’s results, not just whether the survey was conducted in compliance with the conversion statute’s procedures. 2014Construing the statute to eliminate the power of local entities and agencies to consider the results of the survey when processing a conversion application would consign the ‘to be considered’ language of subdivision (d)(5) to surplusage.” ● Goldstone, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at page 1054 : Goldstone held the local agency may consider the survey’s results, not just whether the survey was conducted in compliance with the conversion statute’s procedures. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Chino MHC v. City of Chino
green
2 sentences2014If the Legislature intended the local entity or agency to tick boxes on a compliance checklist and rubberstamp all applications where the appropriate boxes were marked, it would not have directed the [mobile park owner] to submit the results of the resident survey, nor would it have directed that those results ‘be considered’ as part of the hearing.” ● Chino MHC, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at pages 1068-1069: Chino MHC held a local agency may rely on the survey to find the conversion is a sham, but it may not make that finding based solely on a lack of majority support among the residents for the 2014If the Legislature intended the local entity or agency to tick boxes on a compliance checklist and rubberstamp all applications where the appropriate boxes were marked, it would not have directed the [mobile park owner] to submit the results of the resident survey, nor would it have directed that those results ‗be considered‘ as part of the hearing.‖ ● Chino MHC, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at pages 1068-1069: Chino MHC held a local agency may rely on the survey to find the conversion is a sham, but it may not make that finding based solely on a lack of majority support among the residents for the | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma
green
2 sentences2010In addition, since 1995 the statute has also provided that the scope of the subdivision map hearing is “limited to the issue of compliance with [section 66427.5].” (§ 66427.5, subd. (e).) The statute was amended in 2002 to require subdividers to obtain a “survey of support of residents of the mobilehome park,” and to submit the results of the survey to the local agency authorized to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. (§ 66427.5, subd. (d)(1), (5).) The survey results are required “to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing . . . .” (Id., subd. (d)(5).) 8 Ordina 2010In addition, since 1995 the statute has also provided that the scope of the subdivision map hearing is “limited to the issue of compliance with [section 66427.5].” (§ 66427.5, subd. (e).) The statute was amended in 2002 to require subdividers to obtain a “survey of support of residents of the mobilehome park,” and to submit the results of the survey to the local agency authorized to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. (§ 66427.5, subd. (d)(1), (5).) The survey results are required “to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing . . . .” (Id., subd. (d)(5).) 8 Ordina | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.