21168.5.
In any action or proceeding, other than an action or proceeding under Section 21168, to attack, review, set aside, void or annul a determination, finding, or decision of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with this division, the inquiry shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
Section 21168.5 applies to “any action or proceeding, other than an action or proceeding under Section 21168, to attack, review, set aside, void or annul a determination, finding, or decision of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with this division…” The District argues that section 21168.5 does not apply because the District has not made a “determination, finding, or decision” with respect to the Project.
CITY OF SAUSALITO VS. GOLDEN G
MSN17-0098
May 04, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
Accordingly, we do not follow the dictum in No Oil supra, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 79, footnote 6, and we hold that extra-record evidence is generally not admissible in traditional mandamus actions challenging quasi-legislative administrative decisions on the ground that the agency "has not proceeded in a manner required by law" within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21168.5.
SAN DIEGO WATERFRONT COALITION VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO
37-2018-00031832-CU-MC-CTL
Dec 12, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
“[W]e hold that extra-record evidence is generally not admissible in traditional mandamus actions challenging quasi-legislative administrative decisions on the ground that the agency "has not proceeded in a manner required by law" within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21168.5...
CULVER CITY RESIDENTS FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT VS CITY OF
BS159614
Aug 16, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
LEGAL STANDARD Actions challenging a CEQA determination “made as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in a public agency” are governed by Public Resources Code section 21168.5 All other actions challenging an agency’s CEQA determination are governed by Section 21168.5.
R. MORGAN HOLLAND V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
19CV-0321
Jul 14, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, which holds that "extra-record evidence is generally not admissible in traditional mandamus actions challenging quasi-legislative administrative decisions on the ground that the agency 'has not proceeded in a manner required by law' within the meaning of ... section 21168.5." (Western States Petroleum, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 576.) There are limited exceptions to this general rule.
2020-00543397
Dec 03, 2021
Ventura County, CA
Jan 18, 2013
Dismissal
San Diego County
San Diego County, CA
Toxic Tort/Environmental
Torts
Toxic,Environmental
Section 21168.
Section 21168.6.
6 pages
w aD DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney KRISTEN A. JENSEN, State Bar #130196 ELECTRONICALLY JAMES M. EMERY, State Bar #153630 FILED Deputy City Attorneys Superior Court of California, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place County of San Francisco City Hall, Room 234 11/24/2015 San Francisco, California 94102-4682 Clore oF me Court Telephone: (415) 554-4628 Facsimile: (415) 554-4757 a E-Mail: kristen.jensen@sfgov.org jim.emery@sfgov.org Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY O…
May 21, 2015
San Francisco County, CA
Nov 24, 2015
OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS (COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, EJECTMENT, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF...)
18 pages
1 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL RACHEL VAN MULLEM, County Counsel 2 LINA SOMAIT, Senior Deputy (Bar No. 263876) 105 East Anapamu Street, Suite 201 3 Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone (805) 568-2950 / Fax (805) 568-2982 4 E-mail: lsomait@countyofsb.org 5 Attorney…
18 pages
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 1 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSE…
7 pages
ORIGINAL 1 SAN MATEO COUNTY COUNSEL EUGENE WHITLOCK, SBN 237797 Deputy 400 County County Counsel Center, 6th Floor …
13 pages
IONAMIN SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Sep-18-2012 2:59 pm Case Number: CPF-11-511439 Filing Date: Sep-18-2012 2:59 Filed by: ROSSALY DELAVEGA Juke Box: 001 Image: 03768575 GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE) SAN FRANCISCO TOMORROW et al VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al *CASE TYPE CORRECTED OCT-06-11* (CEQA Case) 001C03768575 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. 9Gioson Dunn & Gniteher LLP DENN…
Jul 11, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
Sep 18, 2012
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
