Search for: "Arthur F. Coon"
Results 221 - 240
of 450
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Sep 2017, 10:23 am
Preliminarily, the Court rejected real party Planned Parenthood’s argument that Respect Life lacked standing, observing that “[f]or a party to have standing to petition for a writ of mandate, the party must have a beneficial interest in the litigation. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 3:13 pm
AB 890 (Medina – D), recently sent to Governor Brown for action by October 15, seeks to amend Government Code § 65867.5 and to add §§ 65363 and 65850.10 to prevent development agreements and certain types of land use planning and zoning legislation from being enacted by local voter-sponsored land use initiatives. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 3:13 pm
AB 890 (Medina – D), recently sent to Governor Brown for action by October 15, seeks to amend Government Code § 65867.5 and to add §§ 65363 and 65850.10 to prevent development agreements and certain types of land use planning and zoning legislation from being enacted by local voter-sponsored land use initiatives. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 12:38 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 12:38 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
21 Aug 2017, 10:14 am
In a published decision filed August 8, 2017, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial Court’s judgment dismissing a CEQA action brought by two individuals (“Appellants”) against the Mt. [read post]
21 Aug 2017, 10:14 am
In a published decision filed August 8, 2017, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial Court’s judgment dismissing a CEQA action brought by two individuals (“Appellants”) against the Mt. [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 3:37 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 3:37 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
27 Jul 2017, 8:52 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
27 Jul 2017, 8:52 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 9:24 am
“You may say I’m a dreamer. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 4:44 pm
On July 13, 2017, the California Supreme Court rendered a 6-1 decision holding that the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) 2011 EIR for its Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) issued pursuant to SB 375 did not violate CEQA “by declining to explicitly engage in an analysis of the consistency of projected 2050 greenhouse gas emissions with the goals in [a 2005] executive order [the “2005 EO”]. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 3:22 pm
On June 16, 2017 – without seeking either rehearing in the First District Court of Appeal or review by the Supreme Court – losing appellants Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity filed a letter asking the Supreme Court to depublish the First District’s (Division 1) recent opinion in Sierra Club v. [read post]
9 Jun 2017, 11:58 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 1:37 pm
In a 38-page opinion filed May 4, and belatedly ordered published on May 25, 2017, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by three environmental groups alleging CEQA violations against the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) in connection with its issuance of 214 individual permits for new oil wells in the long-established South Belridge Oil Field in Kern County. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 3:57 pm
In an opinion filed March 23, and belatedly modified and ordered published on May 25, 2017, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s dismissal of a plaintiff environmental group’s (“Friends”) CEQA action against a local air quality district (“District”). [read post]
26 May 2017, 1:36 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
11 May 2017, 8:18 am
When all was said and done, it was a case of “same wine, different bottle” for Defendant and Appellant San Mateo Community College District (“District”) after the First District Court of Appeal’s published May 5, 2017 decision, following remand from the California Supreme Court, in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 2:32 pm
On April 21, 2017, the First District Court of Appeal filed a 22-page published opinion providing significant guidance and analysis concerning the critical, but sometimes elusive, distinction between “discretionary” project approvals that are subject to CEQA and “ministerial” ones that are exempt from it. [read post]
