California Court of Appeal

In challenge by plaintiff to defendant's condemnation of eight acres of plaintiff's property to complete a park and trail, the trial court's ruling that only the CEQA exemption finding be vacated, but defendant could leave its resolution of necessity intact and proceed with its condemnation action, is affirmed, where: 1) defendant's return does not show that the present CEQA controversy is moot; 2) the trial court did not err in interpreting Public Resources Code section 21168.9 to conclude that the portion of the project consisting of defendant's acquisition of property to be in noncompliance with CEQA; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in exercising its equitable powers.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/12/2013
• Published 04/12/2013

Judges

• BRUINIERS

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel