RedGage is the best way to earn real money from your photos, videos, blogs, and links.

What is corporate compliance

Plaintiff property owner appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Francisco County (California), which denied his request for declaratory relief in an action against defendant municipality under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq., and a city ordinance, S.F. Bus. & Tax. Regs. Code, § 26.

The owner submitted plans for alterations to the interior of his house, which was located in a historic neighborhood. The plans involved the destruction of portions of natural redwood interiors that had been used as a design feature by a famous architect. The municipality refused to process any part of the permit application absent review under CEQA on the ground that CEQA applied to projects that impacted a historical resource, such as the owner's house. Thewhat is corporate complianceheld that the proposed modifications, being to the interior of an existing single-family residence and not perceptible to others, lacked the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and were beyond the reach of CEQA. Destruction of an irreplaceable antiquity not being savored by the public did not qualify as a significant effect under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064, subd. (e). The court noted that the city had not made any determinations under the city ordinance, S.F. Bus. & Tax. Regs. Code, § 26, with respect to the owner's plans. Absent the exercise of § 26 administrative discretion, the issue of the limits of the city's § 26 powers over the owner's project was not ripe for judicial resolution.

The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to grant the owner's request for a judicial declaration that CEQA did not apply to his application for a permit to make interior modifications to his house and to deny the owner's request for a declaration of rights under the ordinance.

Petitioner licensee appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied the licensee's petition for a writ of mandate to compel respondent Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to annul an order of the Board of Equalization (board) under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25601 that revoked the general on-sale license to sell alcoholic beverages and to reinstate the license.

The board revoked the liquor license based on a finding that the licensee, a corporation, over a period of six years permitted the licensed saloon and restaurant to be used as a place where patrons committed lewd acts and other violations of the law resulting in the arrests of 41 persons. The licensee contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation of the license. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court held that regardless of whether the 41 arrests resulted in convictions, there was substantial evidence that the licensee permitted the premises to be used for purposes contrary to public welfare and morals and the board had the power to revoke the license on that basis. The court rejected the contention of the licensee's stockholders, who gained control of the corporation two years prior to the license revocation, that they should not be penalized for licensee's actions prior to their period of ownership. The court held that there was no evidence that would have warranted the board in disregarding the corporate status of the licensee.

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in denying the licensee's writ of mandate to compel the board to enter order annulling the license revocation and to reinstate the liquor license.

Thanks. Your rating has been saved.
You've added this content to your favorites.
Make money on RedGage just like simonhopes!