Star Lightner is senior counsel in the Walnut Creek office of Miller Starr Regalia, and senior editor of the treatise Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 4th and associated publications. She is currently the update author for six chapters of the Treatise and writes the majority of summaries for the bimonthly periodical Miller & Starr, California Real Estate Newsalert, in addition to overseeing the Treatise and Newsalert publication process.
Star previously practiced at Farella Braun + Martel LLP as well as Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker in San Francisco where she handled administrative enforcement actions before the California Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Toxic Substances Control, as well as compliance counseling and litigation involving CERCLA, CEQA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65).
J.D., University of California, Berkeley School of Law (1997)
B.A., California State University, Sonoma (1990)
Contra Costa Association of Realtors
Contra Costa County Bar Association, Real Estate Section
State Bar of California, Real Estate Section
THE BOOK: Miller & Starr, California Real Estate
Ch. 11, “Holding Title,” Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 4th (update author)
Ch. 19, “Landowners’ Liability,” Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 4th (rewritten in 2015)
Ch. 31, “Construction Law and Contracting,” Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 4th (rewritten in 2016-2017)
Ch. 32, “Mechanics Liens,” Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 4th (update author)
Ch. 33, “Defective Construction,” Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 4th (update author)
Ch. 38, “Discrimination,” Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 4th (rewritten in 2015)
Articles
"Real Estate Case Update," California Real Property Journal, Vol. 39, No.1, 2021
"The Top Ten Real Property Cases of 2016," California Real Property Journal, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2017 (co-author)
"Fall CEQA Roundup: Significant Developments and a Preview of Coming Attractions," Miller & Starr, Real Estate Newsalert, Vol. 26, No. 2, November 2015 (co-author)
“Proposition 65 Plaintiffs Attacking Meat Industry Being Met With Preemption Argument,” Farella Braun + Martel Alert, May 3, 2005 (co-author)
“Diminishing Returns? Comparing Past and Present Proposition 65 Cases,” Farella Braun + Martel Alert, May 1, 2004
“Federal Preemption of California’s Proposition 65,” Farella Braun + Martel Alert, 2003 (co-author)
“Diminishing Returns? Comparing Past and Present Proposition 65 Cases,” Prop 65 News Conference, San Francisco, California, March 29, 2004
“Federal Preemption of California’s Proposition 65,” Prop 65 News Conference, Sacramento, California, June 2, 2003
In 1963, the California legislature became concerned that private landowners were “bar[ring] public access to their land for recreational uses out of fear of incurring tort liability.”
Two cases from different appellate districts in California have come to different conclusions about the enforceability of co-tenancy provisions. This article describes co-tenancy provisions, discusses liquidated damages and alternative performance, and then reviews Grand Prospect and JJD in detail to compare the reasoning in each case.
Each year, it is a real challenge to select the top ten real estate cases for our annual overview.
As always, it can be challenging to select the top ten real estate cases for our annual overview.