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 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.