California Court of Appeal
CITIZENS FOR HATTON CANYON v. CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF TRANSP., h024449
Summary judgement in favor of the defendant is affirmed, holding that Assembly Bill No. 434, is not inconsistent with the California Constitution where the definition of "in the coastal zone" as it appears in article XIX, section 9 of the Constitution encompasses properties only partially in the coastal zone.
Appellate Information
- Decided 10/17/2003
- Published 10/17/2003
Judges
- RUSHING, P.J.
Court
- California Court of Appeal
Counsel
- For Appellant:
- Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss, Michael Masuda, Christine P. Gianascol, Salinas, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
- For Appellees:
- Bruce A. Behrens, Sacramento, David Gossage and Antonio R. Anziano, San Francisco, for Defendants and Respondents., Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Richard M. Frank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary E. Hackenbracht, Assistant Attorney General, John Davidson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for Defendants and Respondents., Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp, Michael W. Stamp, Monterey, for the Interveners and Respondents.