Search for: "Matter of Miller" Results 2561 - 2580 of 4,471
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Apr 2020, 9:05 pm by Lynn McDonough
Finally, Miller and her coauthors argue that more research is require [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Times Newspaper Ltd v Flood; Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd; Frost & Ors v MGN Ltd, heard 24-26 January 2017. [read post]
1 Feb 2023, 8:44 am by Arielle Harris
The 2021-2022 Legislative Session was light on CEQA amendments, and once again did not produce any significant reform. [read post]
19 Dec 2016, 8:36 am by Arthur F. Coon
In an opinion filed December 7, and later ordered published on December 16, 2016, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment denying a writ petition on the “single legal issue” whether plaintiffs were entitled under Public Resources Code § 21151(c) (and a municipal code section with essentially the same content) to an appeal of a planning commission’s “substantial conformance review” (SCR) determination to the city council. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 2:09 pm by Robert Black
This matters because arguably the 18th Amendment’s provision was not actually a ratification deadline at all. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 11:51 am by Arthur F. Coon
I recently analyzed proposed legislation (SB 122) seeking to create an alternative procedure for preparation of the CEQA administrative record concurrently with administrative proceedings on a project and prior to any litigation challenging it. [read post]
6 May 2007, 3:16 am
Malawi Human Rights Commission, which was a friend of the court in the matter, said it was happy with the ruling. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 1:39 pm by Arthur F. Coon
CEQA’s Class 32 categorical exemption for “infill development” applies to proposed developments within city limits on sites of five or fewer acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, where the site has no habitat value for special status species, can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services, and the project would not have significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts. [read post]
16 Nov 2023, 12:24 pm by Arthur F. Coon
The Court of Appeal’s Opinion SMARA Claim The Court first held as a matter of law that SMARA’s statutory “statement of reasons” requirement did not apply to the County’s wildlife migration corridor overlay zoning ordinance Project because enacting an ordinance changing permitting requirements did not constitute “permitting a use” under the statute’s plain meaning. [read post]
3 Dec 2019, 4:56 pm by Arthur F. Coon
  The California Supreme Court on November 26, 2019 entered its order denying the depublication requests and declining to review the matter on its own motion. [read post]