6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 22 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 Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley Anchor | green | “for policy reasons, the legislature has expressly exempted several categories of projects from review under ceqa. by statute, the legislature has also directed the secretary of the natural resources agency . . . to establish 'a list of classes of projects that have been determin…” | 5 |
| 2 | Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley | green | “under ceqa and its implementing guidelines, an agency generally conducts an initial study to determine 'if the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” | 5 |
| 3 | Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka | green | “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance” | 3 |
| 4 | Friends of Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose | green | “the fair argument standard applies to the question whether the proposed project 'may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource' . . . .” | 3 |
| 5 | Aptos Residents Ass'n v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz | green | “the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.” | 3 |
| 6 | Aptos Residents Ass'n v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz | green | “where an exception is predicated on a factual issue, we apply a traditional substantial evidence standard.” | 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.