Search for: "Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco" Results 1 - 20 of 34
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jan 2013, 9:04 am by Abbott & Kindermann
City and County of San Francisco (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 950: The lead agency correctly applied a Class 3 CEQA exemption to applications for permits to add wireless equipment throughout the City and County of San Francisco. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 4:09 am by Amy Howe
The Court also heard oral argument on Monday in City and County of San Francisco v. [read post]
7 Feb 2017, 3:27 pm by Jamie Baker
Gavoor & Daniel Miktus, Public Participation in Nonlegislative Rulemaking, 61 L. [read post]
23 May 2019, 7:12 am by John Elwood
The Supreme Court took a case raising a similar question in City and County of San Francisco v. [read post]
The Project and First Lawsuit The Martha Company (“Martha”) owns 110 acres overlooking the San Francisco Bay near the town of Tiburon. [read post]
6 May 2020, 12:12 pm by Peter Margulies
Indeed, in a December 2019 Ninth Circuit ruling, City & Cty. of San Francisco v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 2:26 pm
In Lockyer v City & County of San Francisco, the California Supreme Court explained that the regulation of marriage in California is committed to state officials, so that the mayor of San Francisco had no authority to “take any action with regard to the process of issuing marriage licenses or registering marriage certificates. [read post]
24 May 2024, 7:49 am by John Elwood
The city and county of San Francisco received a permit from the EPA under the law’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System that allowed San Francisco to discharge from its wastewater treatment facility into the Pacific Ocean. [read post]
26 Mar 2007, 1:02 am

 Visit the Tech Law Practice Center
 • SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED
 
 Law.com ®
 10 United Nations Plaza, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 (800) 903-9872. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 10:00 pm by Tom Goldstein
Another respondent – the City and County of San Francisco – has filed a brief that more seriously addresses the standing issue over the course of ten pages. [read post]
12 Aug 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
Herrera Velutini and Rossini allegedly paid more than $300,000 to consultants who supported Vázquez Garced’s campaign. [read post]