Final ruling in People's Park case turns around on one issue and softens the argument on the other -- but prompts Newsom to vow CEQA reform.

In an acrimonious case about water rights, an appellate court strikes down the "Weed Nine's" malicious prosecution argument.

An Arcadia homeowner wanted to stop the expansion of his neighbor's home. He took it to the Court of Appeal -- but he wasn't specific enough in his original comments before the city's planning commission and city council.

Appellate judges say that density transfer creates potential environmental impacts and therefore an "excxeption to the exemption" under Berkeley Hillsideis warranted.

San Diego judge's decision also faults the City of San Diego for not analyzing cumuative impacts of several adjacent projects.

An appellate court partially reverses a lower court decision on an anti-SLAPP motion in a case where a city planner sought to drum up opposition to expansion of a Montessori school.

Court found that developer had not pursued all administrative remedies before suing.

Among other things, the appellate ruling found that Livermore's design standards are not objective and therefore cannot be used to deny an affordable housing project.

But appellate justices say state was correct that aesthetics is a subjective matter and not inherently a significant impact.

<p>100% affordable project can't be struck down based on subjective standards or lack of strict adherence to specific plan policies. CEQA exemption based on Downtown Specific Plan was also upheld.</p>

Developer's ignorance of appeals process means administrative remedies were not exhausted.

Appellate court rejected anti-SLAPP motion, saying San Anselmo lawsuit was meritless and lawyer was "indifferent".