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.
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 | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Santisas v. Goodin Anchor | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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.