Appellate court strikes down Anti-SLAPP motion, opening the door for an inverse condemnation lawsuit. Meanwhile, litigation over builder's remedy application continues.
In allowing People's Park housing project to go forward, high court defers to the Legislature's action to override a lower court ruling that drunken noisy students can be a significant impact under CEQA.
Limited-growth group's lawsuit against Expo Line Plan tossed out for being filed too early. But appellate court also said Expo Line Plan doesn't violate the Los Angeles General Plan's policy encouraging adequate infrastructure.
Advocacy group is time-barred in challenging high-profile TOC case in the context of a specific project approval. But city must re-do seismic analysis on Santa Monica Boulevard project.
Appellate court criticizes state and Sacramento judge for allowing a revised EIR to go through without assurance that it fixed the defects the court previously identified.
In an unpublished ruling, the court found the futility rule did not apply to the notorious case of a Coronado bungalow, thus killing a jury's award of $800,000.
The state recently approved Beverly Hills' housing element, bringing a contentious situation to a close. Most other housing elements have also been approved and the state is negotiating with the remaining cities and counties to reach agreement.
Patterns since the beginning of the pandemic suggest that there might be a slight rebalancing of population and housing in California. But persisently high prices seem to show that other factors are at work.
Combination of legislation and administrative changes would expand state housing agency's oversight and power over local government housing elements in many significant ways.
The law says it's supposed to promote "affordable housing," but L.A. judge throws the lot-split law out because it doesn't guarantee deed-restricted below-market rate units.
The U.S. Supreme Court's exactions ruling left a lot of things up in the air. Most important: Does California's typical "fair share" methodology for general plan-level exactions meet the court's "rough proportionality" rule?
U.S. Supreme Court rules unanimously that California's unique exactions rule is unconstitutional. But will it really require California cities and counties to scale back on exactions?
