Search for: "City of Oakland v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 116
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
City of Oakland (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 799, the First District Court of Appeal held an agreement between a developer and the City of Oakland was unenforceable to the extent it prevented the city from imposing new impact fees in the future. [read post]
8 Dec 2023, 1:42 am by centerforartlaw
However, in recent years, the legality of murals in the United States is not without its challenges, especially with regards to murals made by and for minority groups. [read post]
5 Apr 2023, 12:32 pm by Josh Blackman
As the United States explained in an amicus brief filed in City of Oakland—another case brought by localities alleging tort claims against fossil-fuel-producing companies in response to climate-change-related injuries—claims may be removable under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) on the ground that, although nominally couched as state-law claims, they are inherently and necessarily federal in nature. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 8:28 am by Eric Goldman
  But it was not a claim filed by Oppenheimer, but a claim referred to the CCB from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [read post]
11 May 2022, 1:48 pm by Mary Whisner
Cohen, 1972- author.2020 Oakland, California University of California PresseBookIntimate wars : the life and times of the woman who brought abortion from the back alley to the board room Merle Hoffman, 1946- 2012 New York City : Feminist Press at CUNY Print BookBeggars and choosers : how the politics of choice shapes adoption, abortion, and welfare in the United States Rickie Solinger, 1947- 2001 New York : Hill and Wang  Law Reviews and… [read post]
3 Dec 2021, 12:30 pm by John Ross
When the M/V Galani hit the M/V Marina in the Paros-Antiparos Strait, a woman named Curtis with wounds most injurious brought suit in the United States. [read post]
Regarding exhaustion, the court reasoned that because the County’s hearing notice did not provide any notice of the CEQA grounds it would used to comply with CEQA, as stated in Tomlinson v. [read post]
Regarding exhaustion, the court reasoned that because the County’s hearing notice did not provide any notice of the CEQA grounds it would used to comply with CEQA, as stated in Tomlinson v. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 5:27 am by Eugene Volokh
In 2000, the United States Supreme Court upheld a law imposing a similar restriction on approaching within 8 feet of other person in certain public locations, but size matters. [read post]