Topic: an appellate decision is not authority for everything said … · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #9276

7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 40 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 Santisas v. Goodin.

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 Santisas v. Goodin Anchor
calctapp · 1998
green “an appellate decision is not authority for everything said in the court's opinion but only 'for the points actually involved and actually decided.” 21
2 Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley
calctapp · 1999
green “where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” 4
3 Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
calctapp · 2006
green “did not come close to meeting its burden because it simply accepted as correct a seven-page single-spaced letter from pge's lawyer misstating the law of berkeley hillside and erroneously stating that as long as the operations for diablo continued the same, then the commission di…” 3
4 Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz
calctapp · 2005
green “nothing in the baseline concept excuses a lead agency from considering the potential environmental impacts of increases in the intensity or rate of use that may result from a project.” 3
5 North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water District
calctapp · 2014
green “is de novo in the sense that we review the agency's actions as opposed to the trial court's decision.” 3
6 Citizens for East Shore Parks v. State Lands Commission
calctapp · 2011
green “because an improper 'baseline' was applied, and the staff never performed the 'factual evaluation' that was necessary to make a decision on public trust.” 3
7 Citizens for East Shore Parks v. State Lands Commission
calctapp · 2011
green “continued to evaluate the appropriate environmental review pursuant to ceqa for this application.” 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.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check