Search for: "Wildlife Preservation, LLC"
Results 1 - 20
of 53
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jan 2024, 2:58 pm
The Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of HB20 in NetChoice, LLC v. [read post]
22 Sep 2023, 8:57 am
Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204 (“Center For Biological Diversity”) (analyzed in my 12/2/15 post here) and Golden Door Properties, LLC v. [read post]
21 Sep 2023, 9:01 pm
Department of the Interior announced a plan to preserve over 4,000 acres of land within New Mexico’s Placitas region. [read post]
13 Sep 2023, 1:31 pm
Electron Hydro, LLC and Fischer (Clean Water Act) Pueblo of Pojoaque and Buffalo Thunder, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2023, 7:54 am
Professor Shaffer says we need to preserve species like the Temblor legless lizard for two reasons. [read post]
18 Jun 2023, 11:10 am
Maryland House Joint Resolution 1 of 2023 was typical and would have ensured “that (1) each person, as a matter of human dignity, has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful and sustainable environment, and (2) the state, as the trustee of Maryland’s natural resources, including its air, water, lands, wildlife, and ecosystems, shall preserve them for the benefit of current and future generations. [read post]
14 Nov 2022, 11:30 am
Servs., LLC, No. [read post]
13 Aug 2022, 5:51 pm
He is the sole owner and operator of Elias LLC. [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 11:31 am
Jill Grant & Associates, LLC Attorney. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 3:00 am
Furthermore, the discretion of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (the “Department”) to impose conditions that could ameliorate the project’s environmental impacts could not be imputed to the Board. [read post]
5 Sep 2021, 11:32 am
Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)); see also TransUnion LLC v. [read post]
19 Aug 2021, 12:21 pm
OTI FIBER, LLC, Appellant, v. [read post]
18 Jan 2021, 7:58 pm
The case is Golden Door Properties, LLC v. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 3:00 am
The appellate court concluded that there was substantial evidence of a fair argument of potential impacts because (1) a letter from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) indicated that the studies relied upon were “outdated,” and (2) the most recent study was during a drought period, and CDFW recommended additional studies. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 3:00 am
The appellate court concluded that there was substantial evidence of a fair argument of potential impacts because (1) a letter from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) indicated that the studies relied upon were “outdated,” and (2) the most recent study was during a drought period, and CDFW recommended additional studies. [read post]
29 Nov 2020, 8:08 pm
Thus, in Preserve Wild Santee v. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 3:00 am
The appellate court concluded that there was substantial evidence of a fair argument of potential impacts because (1) a letter from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) indicated that the studies relied upon were “outdated,” and (2) the most recent study was during a drough [read post]
19 Jul 2020, 9:03 pm
Hawaii Wildlife Fund July 28, 2020 | Alejandro E. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
As to a third plant, a special status species, the appellate court also found that the administrative record contained sufficient evidence to support a fair argument that mitigation through onsite preservation or offsite restoration may not succeed, and therefore there may be a significant impact. [read post]
7 Apr 2020, 3:00 am
As to a third plant, a special status species, the appellate court also found that the administrative record contained sufficient evidence to support a fair argument that mitigation through onsite preservation or offsite restoration may not succeed, and therefore there may be a significant impact. [read post]
