Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

CEQA

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. v. City of Ukiah (2024) 319 Cal.Rptr.3d 865

Distinguishing Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, this decision holds that completion of a project to revamp a shooting range did not moot plaintiff's appeal from denial of its CEQA claim.  Though the project was done, the city could still impose mitigation measures on the project to avoid its negative environmental impacts. Read More

Anderson v. County of Santa Barbara (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 554

The trial court erred in granting homeowners an injunction against the county Road Commissioner barring the county from enforcing ordinances banning encroachments on a county road leading to a popular public hiking trail.  Courts may not enjoin enforcement of the laws, which in this case make encroachments a misdemeanor offense.  Contrary to the homeowners' claim, CEQA does not require any… Read More

Jenkins v. Brandt-Hawley, No. A162852, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 1059 (Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2022)

The trial court correctly denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion to strike this malicious prosecution action, finding plaintiff had established the probable validity of the malicious prosecution claim as to two causes of action in the underlying action, for violation of a municipal ordinance governing approval of demolition projects and for violation of CEQA.  The municipal ordinance claim was baseless since the… Read More