Except as provided in Sections 25402.11 and 25531, if the commission finds that any provision of this division is violated, or a violation is threatening to take place that constitutes an emergency requiring immediate action to protect the public health, welfare, or safety, the Attorney General, upon request of the commission, shall petition a court to enjoin the violation. The court may grant prohibitory or mandatory injunctive relief as warranted by way of temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction.
Chapter 10Enforcement and Judicial Review
Section § 25900
If there's a violation or a threat of a violation related to public health, welfare, or safety, the California commission involved can ask the Attorney General to stop it immediately. They do this by getting a court order to prevent the violation or require specific actions to be taken right away. The court can issue various types of orders to handle the situation, including temporary and permanent ones.
emergency action public health protection welfare safety Attorney General petition court injunction temporary restraining order preliminary injunction permanent injunction violations commission findings
Section § 25901
This law allows someone who is unhappy with a decision made by the commission to ask the superior court to review it within 30 days. It's called filing a 'writ of mandate.' Not filing a writ doesn't stop someone from questioning the decision in other ways, like in later court cases. The court usually sticks with the commission's decision unless it's proven that the commission went beyond its boundaries, didn't have solid evidence, or didn't follow the rules properly.
The rules for how these court reviews should happen mostly follow certain procedures already set out in another law, the Code of Civil Procedure.
(a)CA Public Resources Code § 25901(a) Within 30 days after the commission issues its determination on any matter specified in this division, except as provided in Section 25531, any aggrieved person may file with the superior court a petition for a writ of mandate for review thereof. Failure to file such an action does not preclude a person from challenging the reasonableness and validity of a decision in any judicial proceedings brought to enforce the decision or to obtain other civil remedies.
(b)CA Public Resources Code § 25901(b) The decision of the commission shall be sustained by the court unless the court finds (1) that the commission proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction, (2) that, based exclusively upon a review of the record before the commission, the decision is not
supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record, or (3) that the commission failed to proceed in the manner required by law.
(c)CA Public Resources Code § 25901(c) Except as otherwise provided in this section, subdivisions (f) and (g) of Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure govern proceedings pursuant to this section.
writ of mandate superior court review aggrieved person commission decision judicial challenge substantial evidence jurisdiction proceedings civil remedies court ruling conditions review process filing deadline jurisdiction limits Code of Civil Procedure legal review criteria
Section § 25902
This law section states that any evaluations or decisions made in specific reports or notices are not considered final by the commission. Because of this, these evaluations and findings cannot be challenged or reviewed in court.
Any evaluations in the reports required by Section 25309 and any findings and determinations on the notice of intent pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 25500) shall not be construed as a final evaluation, finding, or determination by the commission and a court action may not be brought to review any such evaluation, finding, or determination.
evaluations reports notice of intent commission court action final determination review Chapter 6 Section 25309 Section 25500 findings determinations
Section § 25903
If a certain part of the law about reviewing decisions on site and facility certifications is found to be invalid, then these reviews will take place in the superior court. This court will prioritize scheduling these reviews quickly. Any appeals from these reviews will also be fast-tracked in the Supreme Court and appellate courts.
If any provision of subdivision (a) of Section 25531, with respect to judicial review of the decision on certification of a site and related facility, is held invalid, judicial review of such decisions shall be conducted in the superior court subject to the conditions of subdivision (b) of Section 25531. The superior court shall grant priority in setting such matters for review, and the appeals from any such review shall be given preference in hearings in the Supreme Court and courts of appeal.
judicial review site certification facility decision review superior court appeal process priority scheduling review invalidity Supreme Court preference court of appeal prioritization Section 25531 conditions
