Dunn-Edwards Corp. v. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT.

Caution
11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 850·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1113·9 Cal. App. 4th 644·92 Daily Journal DAR 12829·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7895
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 16, 1992A055155California5,541 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (the District) appeals from a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside its regulation 8 amendments relating to certain architectural coatings adopted on January 17, 1990. The plaintiffs who obtained the writ cross-appeal on the ground the writ should be effective as of the date of the judgment. We affirm the judgment.

The plaintiffs in this action are 21 California manufacturers, retailers and contractors who make, sell, and apply various enamels, lacquers, and paints (architectural coatings). In the 1950's almost all architectural coatings were solvent-borne. Solvent, rather than water, carried the pigments, resins, and additives which made up the coatings. As a result of technological advances, special resins were developed by resin suppliers, which enabled paint manufacturers to develop many architectural coatings which were water-borne. However, for certain specialized and more demanding applications, many professional painters and some homeowners continue to prefer solvent-borne coatings. Both the old and the new types of coatings contain volatile organic compounds (VOC).…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.