Legal Digest

Judge rules that the city's decision not to enforce its moratorium on shelters and supportive housing doesn't make the lawsuit either moot or unripe. 

Court declines to knock out a second permit applicant that was in close proximity to the proposed dispensary

Overturning a lower court, the California Supreme Court ruled that because the 19th Century "lot" had never been conveyed separately from other "lots" on the parcel, it cannot be viewed as a separate parcel under the Subdivision Map Act.

Allowing emergency, maintenance, and delivery vehicles doesn't constitute a "partial" close under the Streets & Highways Law. 

In a provocative ruling, an appellate court said that because federal law makes marijuana illegal, Santa Barbara County's approval of an easement to permit transportation of the substance cannot stand. 

The latest legal news in short bursts: Coastal Commission can't allow seawalls on projects built after 1976, ED1 revisions don't apply prospectively, and La Cañada Flintridge housing element appeal is moot.

Appellate court rejected the idea that the hotel is too tall but agreed that fire protection is lacking. 

Reversing a trial judge, an appellate court ruled that a seawall can be built to protect an apartment complex built in 1972 -- but not an adjacent condo building built in 1984, eight years after the Coastal Act was passed.

Controversial park project likely to move forward after appellate ruling found no merit in lawsuit from longtime community activist, who argued that the project description wasn't detailed enough and her own comments constituted sustantial evidence for an EIR.

Split court concludes that the White House Council on Environmental Quality doesn't have the legal authority to issue regulations. Confusion among NEPA practitioners is likely.

In a case against a grocery store in King City brought by a union, the Sixth District Court of Appeal said that other infill definitions in the CEQA Guidelines do not apply to Class 32 exemptions.

Appellate court says that Lake County didn't adequate analyze the impact of a new resort on wildfire evacuation routes of current residents.

The L.A. County Board of Supervisors changed a staff recommendation on new vineyards in the Santa Monica Mountains from heavy regulation to an outright ban. An appellate court concluded that the change was so small in the overall context of the area plan update that no further CEQA action was needed.

Yes, the rooftop deck near the University of Southern California doesn't create a significant impact under CEQA, as per the People's Park case. But the City of Los Angeles still must find that the project conforms with an old redevelopment plan.