|
- CEQA-
Public Resources Code §21080.09 does not shield public universities from complying with the California Environmental Quality Act when they make discretionary decisions to increase enrollment levels.
Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. Regents of the University of California - filed June 25, 2020, First District, Div. Five
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 3119
Full text click here >
- Development -
A claim challenging an agency’s interpretation of a condition of approval for the development of a property does not accrue for purposes of the statute of limitations until it is clear what interpretation the agency has adopted and that the interpretation is the agency’s final position.
Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus - filed June 25, 2020, Fifth District
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 3124
Full text click here>
- Endangered Species Act -
The full, five-factor threats analysis under Endangered Species Act §4 only applies when making a decision to delist, not when reviewing the status of a species; the Fish and Wildlife Service must still determine on whether there is a sufficiently distinct and protectable remnant population, so that the delisting of a distinct population segment will not further threaten the existence of the remnant.
Crow Indian Tribe v. United States - filed July 8, 2020
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 18-36030
Full text click here >
- Environmental Impact -
The Bureau of Land Management did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it chose to geld and release a portion of the male wild horse population in Nevada to restore ecological balance to the area; an environmental impact statement was not required since the BLM used the existing evidence to assess the level of uncertainty and made reasonable predictions based on prior data to conclude that there would be no significant environmental impact. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act did not require BLM to discuss explicitly all expert opinions submitted during the public-comment period.
American Wild Horse Campaign v. Bernhardt - filed July 2, 2020
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 18-17403
Full text click here >
The Bureau of Land Management’s 2017 offer and sale of oil and gas leases in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska represented an irretrievable commitment of resources necessitating site-specific analysis in an environmental impact statement; a programmatic EIS prepared for a broad-scale land use plan categorically can provide the site-specific analysis required for irretrievable commitments of resources.
Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. U.S. Department of the Interior - filed July 9, 2020
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 19-35008
Full text click here
- Foreclosure -
Under Nevada law, a promise to make a payment at a later date or once a certain condition has been satisfied cannot constitute a valid tender; a mere offer to pay at a later time, after the superpriority amount is determined, does not constitute a valid tender. Acts that immediately or potentially threaten a debtor’s possession of its property are barred by a bankruptcy stay until such property is no longer property of the estate.
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Corte Madera Homeowners Association - filed June 19, 2020
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 17-16404
Full text click here >
- Homeowners Bill of Rights -
The Homeowners Bill of Rights clearly prescribes a definition for the full owner-occupied term; the fact that a person may reside at a property does not mean it is her principal residence.
Adams v. Bank of America - filed June 30, 2020, First District, Div. Three
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 3251
Full text click here >
- Minerals -
Dinosaur fossils were not within the ordinary and natural meaning of minerals and so fossils found on a property belong to the owner of the surface estate
Murray v. BEJ Minerals - filed June 17, 2020
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 16-35506
Full text click here >
- Proposition 65 -
An administrative body making a quasi-legislative decision is not generally required to either make findings or explain how the evidence supports its decision; it cannot be assumed that committee members, who were made up of independent experts and twice instructed to follow guidance criteria, were led astray by the chairperson’s somewhat confusing and possibly erroneous interpretation of the guidance criteria.
American Chemistry Council v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment - filed June 10, 2020, publication ordered July 8, 2020, Third District
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 3386
Full text click here >
- Quiet Title -
Under 12 U.S.C. §4617(b)(12), a quiet title action is a contract claim that is subject to a statute of limitations of at least six years.
M & T Bank v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC - filed June 25, 2020
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 18-17395
Full text click here >
- Title -
The beneficiary of an indisputably valid deed of trust on a property had no legal obligation to monitor the status of its title or to take affirmative steps to rid public records of improperly recorded documents relating to the property.
WFG National Title Insurance v. Wells Fargo Bank - filed June 12, 2020, publication ordered July 7, 2020, Second District, Div. Three
Cite as 2020 S.O.S.3392
Full text click here >
Although a purchaser may rely on the recorded chain of title, the purchaser may not ignore information that comes to him from outside the recorded chain of title, to the extent such information puts him on notice of information that reasonably brings into question the state of title reflected in the recorded chain of title; there is no authority requiring that an index search need be performed using a middle name as a first name.
Vasquez v. LBS Financial Credit Union - filed June 17, 2020, publication ordered July 14, 2020, Second District, Div. Seven
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 3552
Full text click here >
- Water Regulation -
The State Water Resources Control Board possesses broad authority to regulate the unreasonable use of water in this state by the adoption of regulations establishing minimum flow requirements protecting the migration of threatened fish species during drought conditions and declaring diversions of water unreasonable where such diversions would threaten to cause the flow of water in the creeks in question to drop below required levels; adoption of such regulations is a quasi-legislative act that is reviewable by ordinary mandamus. Neither the due process guarantees of the federal and California Constitutions, nor Article X, §2 of the California Constitution require the board to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to adoption of a regulation governing reasonable water use.
Stanford Vina Ranch Irrigation Company v. State of California - filed June 18, 2020, Third District
Cite as 2020 S.O.S. 2974
Full text click here >
|