From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
City of Goleta v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
147 P.3d 1037 (2006)
In June 1999, Oly Chadmar Sandpiper General Partnership (Sandpiper) (plaintiff) bought land to develop residential units in Santa Barbara County (the county). In July 1999, the county’s residents began signing a petition to incorporate the city of Goleta (the city) (defendant) within the county. Sandpiper’s land was included within the city’s boundaries. In November 1999, Sandpiper submitted to the county a tentative subdivision map detailing the planned construction. In November 2001, residents voted to approve the city’s incorporation. In January 2002, the county approved Sandpiper’s tentative map. In February 2002, the city was incorporated. As required by law, the county’s subdivision ordinances became the city’s subdivision ordinances for 120 days. The city made no changes to the ordinances other than substituting the city’s name for the county’s name. The city placed a moratorium on development, but excluded Sandpiper’s development on the ground that the development posed no threat to public health, safety, or welfare. In June 2002, the city chose to readopt the subdivision ordinances. In November 2002, the city received Sandpiper’s final subdivision map, which was consistent with the county-approved tentative map. The city denied the final map’s approval on the ground that the city was unsure the development would promote the health, safety, and welfare of the city. Sandpiper filed an action in California trial court on the ground that the city was required to approve the final map. The trial court returned a verdict in Sandpiper’s favor. The city appealed. The California Court of Appeal reversed. Sandpiper appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Corrigan, J.)
Dissent (Kennard, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 604,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.