We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 138

CEQA school in session: First District reverses judgment invalidating EIR for desalination plant project in North Coast Rivers Alliance

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 6 2013

In a lengthy published opinion filed May 21, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment granting a writ of mandate and upheld as

Supreme Court will review CEQA categorical exemption exception in Berkeley Hillside Preservation case

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 23 2012

On May 23, 2012, the California Supreme Court by unanimous vote granted respondents’ and real parties’ petition for review of the First District Court of Appeal’s published decision in Berkeley Hillside Preservation, et al. v. City of Berkeley, et al. (21512 ___ Cal.App.4th ___, Case No. A131254), which held that substantial evidence of a fair argument of a potentially significant environmental impact automatically satisfies the “unusual circumstances” exception, and thus precludes reliance on a CEQA categorical exemption

Residential project exempt from CEQA review under Government Code Section 65457 as consistent with specific plan for which program EIR previously certified

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 10 2013

In a recently published opinion construing Government Code 65457's exemption from environmental review for a residential development

First District holds CEQA’s Class 3 categorical exemption applies to installations of small telecommunications equipment on existing utility poles, recognizes split in case law on standard of review for cumulative impact exception

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 12 2012

The same appellate panel that decided the controversial Berkeley Hillside Preservation case (which is currently in the briefing stage of Supreme Court review) rendered another significant categorical exemption decision in its recently published opinion in Robinson v. City and County of San Francisco (T-Mobile West Corporation, et al., Real Parties

Procedural pitfalls in Code of Civil Procedure Section 860: validation actions a trap for unwary litigants

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 7 2011

Code of Civil Procedure sections 860 to 870 authorize a public agency or an interested private party to bring a “validation action” in superior court to determine the validity of certain public agency actions

Ten CEQA litigation mistakes to avoid

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 13 2011

Vernon Law, famed Pittsburg Pirates pitcher, once said: “Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward”

AB 900 CEQA reform law partially struck down

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 8 2013

Ruling from the bench at a March 29, 2013 hearing, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch found a key provision of an ambitious CEQA reform

High court tackles CEQA future baselines in neighbors for smart rail decision

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 9 2013

In a much-anticipated decision filed August 5, 2013, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA requires a lead agency to assess a project's

Supreme Court case involving CEQA’s “unusual circumstances” exception to categorical exemptions now fully briefed by parties; amicus briefs are up next in Berkeley Hillside Preservation matter

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 14 2012

The Respondent City of Berkeley and Real Parties (Kapors) filed their joint Reply Brief on the Merits in the California Supreme Court in a much-watched categorical exemption case, Berkeley Hillside Preservation, et al. v. City of Berkeley, et al. (No. S201116