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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissionersgreen2 sentences2015(Berkeley Keep Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1368.) Not surprisingly, the appellate court found that the agency violated CEQA because it failed “to do the necessary work to educate itself about the different methodologies [for assessing health risks] that are available.” ( 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1370 , italics omitted.) Neither of these cases supports City’s argument that Metro’s analysis of health risks was inadequate to comply with CEQA. “ ‘CEQA requires an EIR to reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure; it does not mandate perfection, nor does it require an analysis to be exhaustiv 2015(Berkeley Keep Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1368.) Not surprisingly, the appellate court found that the agency violated CEQA because it failed “to do the necessary work to educate itself about the different methodologies [for assessing health risks] that are available.” ( 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1370 , italics omitted.) Neither of these cases supports City’s argument that Metro’s analysis of health risks was inadequate to comply with CEQA. “ ‘CEQA requires an EIR to reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure; it does not mandate perfection, nor does it require an analysis to be exhaustiv | 1 | 2 |
In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedingsgreen1 sentence2025As the agency’s analysis shows, this regional variation would 101 entail greater operational challenges than those already posed by the Bus Alternative, yet, in comparison, it would not materially advance the Project’s overall purpose of providing a direct transit connection between LAUS and Dodger Stadium while improving connectivity for the surrounding communities. “[A]n EIR need not study in detail an alternative that is infeasible or that the lead agency has reasonably determined cannot achieve the project’s underlying fundamental purpose.” ( Bay-Delta, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1165.) When | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shadow Traffic Network v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2007(Shadow Traffic, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1089 .) After first concluding the information imparted by Metro to the experts was confidential within the attorney work product privilege (id. at pp. 1078-1079), the court examined the “pivotal issue” (id. at p. 1084) of whether the experts had disclosed the confidential information to Shadow Traffic’s attorneys. 2004(Shadow Traffic, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1072 .) The trial court granted Metro’s motion and denied Shadow Traffic’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. | 2 | 2004–2007 |
Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of California
green
1 sentence2025As the agency’s analysis shows, this regional variation would 101 entail greater operational challenges than those already posed by the Bus Alternative, yet, in comparison, it would not materially advance the Project’s overall purpose of providing a direct transit connection between LAUS and Dodger Stadium while improving connectivity for the surrounding communities. “[A]n EIR need not study in detail an alternative that is infeasible or that the lead agency has reasonably determined cannot achieve the project’s underlying fundamental purpose.” ( Bay-Delta, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1165.) When | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.