Search for: "In re: Miller"
Results 2781 - 2800
of 3,802
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Apr 2017, 2:32 pm
(While the opinion notes the trial court rejected Respondents’ and Real Parties’ “various procedural defenses” – which were not specified in the opinion, but which in fact included statute of limitations, mootness, and res judicata/collateral estoppel – the Court of Appeal expressly declined to reach these issues, stating in a footnote: “We need not address the Ohlsons’ various procedural defenses because we affirm the trial… [read post]
3 Jan 2022, 11:29 am
The City therefore recirculated a completely re-vamped revised draft EIR (RDEIR) in the form of a “project EIR” which essentially “replaced” the prior program EIR. [read post]
4 Aug 2014, 3:17 pm
., §§ 15161, 15168, 15385, 15152), and relied heavily on what it found to be an analogous Supreme Court decision – In re Bay-Delta, etc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143 – which held that specific details about a second-tier project (the Environmental Water Account, or EWA) that were released shortly before certification of the first-tier PEIS/R for the CALFED Program need not have been included in the PEIS/R. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 10:22 am
Another recent appellate decision held CEQA’s statutes of limitations run from the agency’s initial project approval, and the period to bring suit is not re-opened by subsequent approvals that are simply steps to implement the already-approved project. [read post]
23 May 2024, 4:54 pm
Following supplemental briefing on these issues, and on whether discharge was precluded because only part of the original project was re-approved, the trial court discharged the writ in December 2023, and STC appealed that discharge order. [read post]
28 Sep 2021, 10:40 am
Against the backdrop of another severe drought, water supply and impact issues continue to be points of contention for water agencies, water users, conservation groups, and the state. [read post]
28 Oct 2024, 11:13 am
The Court reviewed at length and distinguished In re Marriage of James & Christine C. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1261, a case heavily relied on by FSFG to support its argument that the trial court lacked discretion to deny its final request for accommodation under rule 1.100. [read post]
18 Aug 2017, 6:23 am
But Miller was not what he appeared to be. [read post]
19 Aug 2019, 1:31 pm
These firms are allegedly complicit in the scheme as they are willing to submit false CEQA reports for improper purposes. (8/7/19 Order re Motion to Dismiss, at 1:20-2:17.) [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 3:39 pm
In December 2014, it notified LandWatch it had additional documents it would mail upon receiving $34.80 in costs, but LandWatch did not request these documents until March 2015, at which time District had to re-gather them, and they were produced in April 2015. [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 4:31 pm
CEQA Litigation/Procedural Issues Various of California’s District Courts of Appeal rendered notable decisions on a number of issues relating to the procedures and rules governing the conduct of CEQA litigation, including the following holdings: Res judicata will not apply to bar a subsequent action on the same claim between the same parties unless the first judgment was on the merits. [read post]
15 Mar 2019, 8:37 am
We’re wondering when you plan to update your followers on the truth of the matter. [read post]
7 Feb 2015, 10:54 am
“They’re getting a tainted product out! [read post]
2 Dec 2022, 11:56 am
.'"] From Miller v. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 5:01 pm
Millstein 11 Harvey Miller 20 We ask you please to join us in congratulating our first honorees at a ceremony tomorrow afternoon at 5:00 in the Dining Room. [read post]
16 Oct 2022, 6:13 am
It all had that Daily Affirmation feel as Zucker and Griffin seemed to assure each other “You’re good enough, you’re smart enough and doggone it, people like you. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 2:27 pm
” An early Washington state case, Miller v. [read post]
14 Mar 2008, 10:39 am
"I understand what they're doing. [read post]
27 Jan 2020, 6:07 am
The government contends that the plaintiffs are simply trying to re-litigate Trump v. [read post]
27 Aug 2020, 5:04 am
But they're all purposeful and seek one thing only: the demise of immigration to the United States. [read post]
