Search for: "Miller, Appeal of"
Results 2401 - 2420
of 4,841
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Oct 2023, 8:40 am
In a partially published opinion filed September 20, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) affirmed the Alameda County Superior Court’s judgments denying writ petitions in three partially consolidated CEQA actions challenging the 2021 project/program EIR for the Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 10:56 am
Rehearing Denied and Opinion Modified In Kern County Ministerial Oil And Gas Well Permitting Ordinance EIR Case On March 20, 2020, the Fifth District Court of Appeal filed an Order modifying its Opinion and denying the requests for rehearing of respondents (Kern County) and real parties (WSPA and CIPA) in King and Gardner Farms, LLC v. [read post]
22 May 2023, 10:58 am
The Court of Appeal’s Opinion The issues presented on Appellant’s appeal were narrowed down to whether the FSEIR was inadequate for (1) failing to identify, analyze and impose “compensatory” mitigation for the project’s significant impacts to historic resources, and (2) failing to adequately respond to comments requesting compensatory mitigation. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 11:00 am
” The EIR’s Analysis of Construction Noise Impacts While rejecting most of appellant Sierra Watch’s noise impact arguments, the Court of Appeal ultimately agreed that one of the EIR’s mitigation measures for construction noise was impermissibly vague and deferred. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 5:22 pm
The Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence supported the EIR’s conclusion that “the possible economic impact of moving judicial activities from the downtown courthouse … was not likely to be severe enough to cause urban decay in downtown Placerville. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 10:20 am
The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment on statute of limitations grounds – holding Citizens’ action was time-barred by CEQA’s limitations periods – without any need to reach District’s related claims of failure to exhaust, mootness, or issues relating to supplemental review. [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]
5 Aug 2024, 8:07 am
The Decision of the Court of Appeals Presiding Judge M. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 7:38 am
Miller, 983 A.2d 736 (Pa. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 9:03 am
Distinguishing Necessity Defense and Defense Based on Coercion or Duress The Court of Appeals in Miller held that, “the defense of necessity is recognized as a defense separate and distinct from the defense of duress. [read post]
23 Feb 2010, 7:59 am
It is not clear, however, whether such bonds will be treated as public works bonds (under the federal Miller Act or the applicable state Little Miller Act) or as private bonds. [read post]
17 May 2016, 9:57 am
The trial court denied the petition, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. [read post]
9 Jan 2016, 1:21 pm
California Department of Food and Agriculture (2015) ___ Cal.App.4th ____, 2015 WL 9598273 (consolidated appeals C072067, C027617). [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 6:39 am
-Colin Miller [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 11:05 am
Both men were convicted, and both appealed. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 5:05 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 1:13 pm
The case is on appeal. [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 3:01 pm
Coon of Miller Starr Regalia. [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 9:27 am
The jury determined this by answering a three-part test developed in Miller v. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 8:48 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [read post]
