Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Real Estate & Property Law Blogs -> inversecondemnation
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Real Estate & Property Law
: inversecondemnationCal Supremes Opine On Statutes Of Limitation In CEQA Challenges
By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
I'm on the road today, so don't have the time to read this opinion in detail, but here's another one for all you CEQA mavens.
In Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors, No. S163680 (Feb. 11, 2010), the California Supreme Court held:
In general, challenges to governmental action under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) face unusually short statutes of limitation. (§ 21167.) Most limitation statutes are triggered by the filing of a public notice, which reports an agency?s determination about the applicability of CEQA or the potential environmental impact of a project. (§§ 21108, 21152.) As we explain in greater detail, an action challenging this determination must generally be brought within 30 days after the notice is filed. (§ 21167, subds. (b), (c) & (e).)
This case involves a particular kind of challenge following a notice of determination (NOD). If an NOD has been filed, but an action alleges that no environmental review was undertaken, which statute of limitations applies: (1) the general 30-day limit on challenges following a notice, or (2) the longer 180-day period provided for a case alleging that no environmental determination was made (§ 21167, subd. (a))? We hold that the filing of an NOD triggers a 30-day statute of limitations for all CEQA challenges to the decision announced in the notice. This interpretation is consistent with the language of section 21167 and the general approach of all notice-based statutes of limitation. The Legislature clearly intended the 30-day statute to apply when an agency files an NOD, and this limitations period may not be extended based on the nature of the CEQA violation alleged.
Because the Court of Appeal reached a contrary conclusion, we reverse that judgment.
Slip op. at 1-2 (footnote omitted). The full opinion is available here.
Full post as published by inversecondemnation on February 11, 2010 (boomark / email).

Cal Supremes Ponder Challenges to Gay-Marriage Ban
Gitmo detainees have a right to be heard in federal court, Supremes say
State Statutes of Limitation for Credit Card Debt
"Procrastination, Deadlines, and Statutes of Limitation"
On Statutes of Limitations in Sex-Abuse Cases
Constitutional Challenges as Facial or As-Applied: Robson's Saturday Evening Review







