Thursday, April 17, 2014

High-speed rail loses again

California Common Sense

From yesterday's Fresno Bee:

A state appeals court rejected a petition by the California High-Speed Rail Authority, potentially clearing the tracks for a trial over whether the agency's controversial and ambitious bullet-train plan can comply with state law.

Three justices with the the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento issued an order late Tuesday summarily denying the rail agency's March 21 request related to a lawsuit by high-speed rail foes in Kings County. The rail authority had asked the appeals court to overturn a Sacramento County Superior Court's decision ordering a trial on one part of a lawsuit while another portion of the case is pending an appeal.

"It's nice when you win one," said Stuart Flashman, an Oakland attorney representing Kings County farmer John Tos, Hanford homeowner Aaron Fukuda and the Kings County Board of Supervisors. "I thought this (petition) was stupid, and by issuing a summary judgment, it looks like the justices thought so, too"...

Flashman said he expects that the rail authority will ask the California Supreme Court to review Tuesday's ruling. "I'm also guessing that review will be quickly denied," he said. "That means that the trial on the issue of the Authority's violations of Prop. 1A's requirements...will move forward, probably some time this summer..."

Thanks to Citizens for California High-Speed Rail Accountability for the link.

Kathy Hamilton on the decision.


Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/04/16/3880279/appeals-court-denies-high-speed.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/04/16/3880279/appeals-court-denies-high-speed.html#storylink=cpy

Labels:

2 Comments:

At 8:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rob, what ever happened to your repaying the SF tax payers for your failed lawsuit against the city? Did you repay them or did you get let off the hook?

 
At 10:16 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Our lawsuit against the city was in fact successful. First, the court ruled in our favor and ordered the city to do an EIR on the 500-page Bicycle Plan. Then, when we challenged the adequacy of that EIR, the Court of Appeal also ruled in our favor.

Maybe you're thinking of the vindictive cost claim the sore loser city filed after the litigation was over? The court threw the cost claim out, too.

Otherwise you got it just right.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home