|
Related
Litigation
The Firm
handles matters related to the entire breadth of the Firm's substantive
practice area. Below is a sampling of published decisions.
CASE
SUMMARIES
Redevelopment
Agency of the County of Riverside v. Superior Court (Birbeck) (1990)
228 Cal.App.3d 1487, 279 Cal.Rptr. 558
Objectors
to adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan must exhaust administrative
remedies during plan adoption/amendment process.
Morgan
v. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (1991)
231 Cal.App.3d 243, 284 Cal.Rptr. 745
- Statutory
requirements for self-formation and representativeness of redevelopment
project area committee were met.
- Substantial
evidence supported determination that project area was blighted.
- Discovery
is limited in validation actions.
- Costs
may be assessed against unsuccessful validation action plaintiffs who
do not own property in the redevelopment project area.
Lippman
v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1630, 286 Cal.Rptr. 406
Project
area committee may be disbanded after redevelopment project has been in
effect for three years.
Lancaster
Redevelopment Agency v. Dibley (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1650, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d
593
Use of low
and moderate income housing trust funds to pay for construction of freeway
overpasses is improper where it will not result in construction of new
housing for persons of low and moderate income.
A
Local and Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th
1773, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 358
The city
council did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to prepare a subsequent
EIR.
Gemtel
Corporation v. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles
(1994) 23 F.3d 1542
Developer
had no right to damages based on redevelopment agency requirement that
proposed hotel pay service employees prevailing wages and benefits.
Castaic
Lake Water Agency v. City of Santa Clarita (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 1257,
49 Cal.Rptr.2d 79
Earthquake
emergency recovery redevelopment plan is not exempt from CEQA.
Ehrlich
v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 242
- Development
conditions can be attached to zone changes.
- Art in
public places programs is a valid method to provide and aesthetic control
on development.
City
of Livermore v. Pacific Gas & Electric (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1410,
59 Cal.Rptr.2d 852
Franchised
electric utility must pay cost of relocating utility poles to accommodate
street widening.
Bernardi
v. City Council of the City of Los Angeles (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 426,
63 Cal.Rptr.2d 347
Stipulated
judgment in redevelopment plan validation action is binding and conclusive
and is not subject to modification.
Community
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hawthorne v. Force Electronics
(1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 622, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 209
Statute
authorizing payment of judgments over ten years does not apply to judgment
in direct condemnation action.
Wagner
v. City of South Pasadena (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 943, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d
91
In order
to meet the requirement of Government Code ? 65009 that an action challenging
certain land use decisions be commenced and service made within 90 days
of the decision, the initial pleading in such an action must be served
in the manner of a summons and complaint.
Beach-Courchesne
v. City of Diamond Bar (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 388, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 265
The redevelopment
plan adopted by the City of Diamond Bar was found to be invalid because
there was not substantial evidence that the proposed project area was blighted.
|
