2/8 (Justice Wiley) issues an interesting published opinion here, which notes:
This case aptly illustrates the wisdom of this deferential standard. Opponents of the project see an eyesore threatening their beautiful neighborhood by the park; the blight will detract from splendid views. Supporters perceive a needed facility that will mesh with their locale; for them, the proximity is an advantage and not a curse.
These heartfelt and honorable disagreements turn in considerable measure on aesthetic judgments. That creates a problem for courts.
“Aesthetics are subjective.” (Georgetown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 358, 363 (Georgetown).)
The law tries hard to steer clear of subjectivity.
How can a community resolve these disagreements that involve clashes of aesthetic judgment?
Also of interest is the caption page, which uses two boxes for the case caption (one box for the parties, one box for the case information). In contrast, the more typical caption looks like this sample, which uses the traditional half-box (or inverted L) caption, separating the parties and case info. Some courts also just use a single vertical line, as here. Variety is the spice of life?
(And then there's the no-line style, like this (which also doesn't have footnote lines either) .)
Posts
