Search for: "Matter of Estate of Kern" Results 21 - 40 of 49
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jun 2017, 1:37 pm by Arthur F. Coon
  The Court of Appeal held that the Alameda judgment was based on mootness and ripeness grounds, not the merits, and thus did not have res judicata effect so as to bar the Kern County action. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 8:23 am by John Palley
 I have personally conducted probates in just about every single probate Court in the state and currently have matters pending in about 10 different counties; Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Yolo, Contra Costa, Solano, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Los Angeles (multiple courts), and the list goes on! [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 11:25 am by Veronika Gaertner
Kern: “Jurisdiction based on the place of performance according to Art. 5(1) Brussels I 2001/Art. 7(1) Brussels I 2012 when a contract combines the sale of real estate with the seller’s obligation to construct business premises and find financially strong tenants” The Düsseldorf Court of Appeal held that a contract combining the sale of real estate with the seller’s obligation to construct business premises on the land and to find financially… [read post]
18 Jan 2021, 7:58 pm by Arthur F. Coon
County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, and my 3/3/20 post on it can be found here. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 4:35 pm by Arthur F. Coon and Matthew C. Henderson
  For nearly all that time, the firm also has written Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d, a 12-volume treatise on California real estate law. [read post]
Kern County Bd. of Supervisors (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 708 at page 752, blogged on here.) [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 3:19 pm by Arthur F. Coon
Kern County Board of Supervisors (2017) _____ Cal.App.5th _____ (“AIR”), my post on which can be found here. [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 4:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
[T]aking Plaintiff’s claims at face value, the extra $500,00 [Defendants] obtained for Plaintiff more than offsets the totality of the legal fees paid by the Plaintiff concerning the Underlying Matter” (NYSCEF doc No. 25-27). [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 4:31 pm by Arthur F. Coon
Kern County Board of Supervisors (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 708, also addressed important CEQA baseline and railroad operation preemption issues. [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 12:10 pm by Arthur F. Coon
Superior Court of Kern County (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1144 [holding investor-owned public utility is not “public agency” as defined by CEQA and thus, absent any need for approval by public agency subject to CEQA, was not required to [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 3:22 pm by Arthur F. Coon
  Also filing and letters in support of the opinion remaining published were the California State Association of Counties, California Building Industry Association, Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation, the County of Kern, a private developer (Cross Development, LLC) represented by Remy Moose Manley, and the law firm of Downey Brand LLP. [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 1:15 pm by Arthur F. Coon
In a published decision filed March 30, 2022, the First District Court of Appeal (Division 5) reversed a trial court judgment upholding the reissued final environmental impact report (“RFEIR”) for a 44-single family residence project on a unique, species- and habitat- rich 32-acre site in the City of Livermore’s Garaventa Hills area. [read post]
20 Jun 2023, 8:42 am by Arthur F. Coon
  Whether an EIR has sufficient detail to enable those who didn’t participate in its preparation to understand and consider meaningfully the issues raised by the project presents a mixed question of law and fact for the court, generally subject to de novo review; but courts will defer to an agency’s underlying factual determinations and choice of analytical methodologies where supported by substantial evidence, and may not set aside an EIR on the ground that an opposite conclusion… [read post]
8 Feb 2022, 10:29 am by Arthur F. Coon
In an opinion filed on December 29, 2021, and later ordered published on January 25, 2022, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) affirmed a judgment upholding the City of Newark’s (City) use of Government Code § 65457’s CEQA exemption for a 469-lot residential subdivision on land adjacent to San Francisco Bay. [read post]