Search for: "Air-Conditioning, et al v. Energy Resources, et al" Results 1 - 20 of 36
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jan 2008, 3:19 am
Exotic Limousines, Inc. et alfiled 04/05/07 1:07-cv-01875Firefly Energy, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 9:03 am by WIMS
Reply of petitioners Michigan, et al. filed and more. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am by Abbott & Kindermann
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users (receptors) of a proposed project? [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 10:22 am by Dean C. Rowan
McSorley's Old Ale HouseMarilyn A. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 10:43 am by Abbott & Kindermann
City of Watsonville, et al. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059: A city acting as its own ALUC is subject to all of the substantive requirements under the State Aeronautics Act. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 10:19 am by Abbott & Kindermann
Among 2010’s highlights were three decisions from the California Supreme Court: two enforcing the abbreviated statutes of limitations set forth in Public Resources Code section 21167 subdivisions (d) and (e), and one holding the baseline for air quality emissions to existing physical conditions, not existing permitted conditions. [read post]