8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 31 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova Anchor | green | “in reviewing an agency's compliance with ceqa in the course of its legislative or quasi-legislative actions, the courts' inquiry 'shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.” | 6 |
| 2 | Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission | green | “ceqa is a comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to the environment. in enacting ceqa, the legislature declared its intention that all public agencies responsible for regulating activities affecting the environment give prime consideration to preventing en…” | 6 |
| 3 | Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestry | green | “a certified program remains subject to the other provisions in ceqa such as the policy of avoiding significant adverse effects on the environment where feasible.” | 3 |
| 4 | Laupheimer v. State of California | green | “cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” | 3 |
| 5 | Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency | green | “focusing on the de minimis effect in absolute terms isolates the effect individually, and this runs counter to the combined approach that ceqa cumulative impacts law requires.” | 3 |
| 6 | City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Board | green | “the rationale for this rule is to avoid the redundancy that would result if environmental issues were addressed in both program-related documents and an eir.” | 3 |
| 7 | Association v. CDF | green | “crops added to the two dinotefuran products at issue here will not result in new significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to honeybees because the uses are already present on the labels of a number of currently registered neonicotinoid containing products.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.