In a provocative ruling, an appellate court said that because federal law makes marijuana illegal, Santa Barbara County's approval of an easement to permit transportation of the substance cannot stand.

The latest legal news in short bursts: Coastal Commission can't allow seawalls on projects built after 1976, ED1 revisions don't apply prospectively, and La Cañada Flintridge housing element appeal is moot.

Appellate court rejected the idea that the hotel is too tall but agreed that fire protection is lacking.

Reversing a trial judge, an appellate court ruled that a seawall can be built to protect an apartment complex built in 1972 -- but not an adjacent condo building built in 1984, eight years after the Coastal Act was passed.

Controversial park project likely to move forward after appellate ruling found no merit in lawsuit from longtime community activist, who argued that the project description wasn't detailed enough and her own comments constituted sustantial evidence for an EIR.

Split court concludes that the White House Council on Environmental Quality doesn't have the legal authority to issue regulations. Confusion among NEPA practitioners is likely.

<p>In a case against a grocery store in King City brought by a union, the Sixth District Court of Appeal said that other infill definitions in the CEQA Guidelines do not apply to Class 32 exemptions.</p>

Appellate court says that Lake County didn't adequate analyze the impact of a new resort on wildfire evacuation routes of current residents.

Yes, the rooftop deck near the University of Southern California doesn't create a significant impact under CEQA, as per the People's Park case. But the City of Los Angeles still must find that the project conforms with an old redevelopment plan.

<p>If it includes a disposition and development agreement with a specific development program, the answer is yes, according to a San Diego judge.</p>

Appellate court rules that bill exempting project from CEQA does not violate state constitution. Preservationists made the unsuccessful argument that the state cannot be trusted to implement the law constitutionally.

In reversing trial court ruling, appellate court okays lower significance threshold -- but also says higher baseline in a supplemental analysis was fine.