Search for: "Matter of Estate of Kern"
Results 21 - 40
of 48
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jun 2017, 1:37 pm
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]
4 May 2018, 12:24 pm
For nearly all that time, the firm also has written Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 4th, a 12-volume treatise on California real estate law. [read post]
22 May 2017, 12:00 pm
As a civil litigator, she focused on commercial and real estate litigation. [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 4:42 pm
As a matter of law, the Court also held the County improperly relied on the existing facilities exemption for the project. [read post]
30 Mar 2007, 11:37 am
" In Rebecca Shaw, Estate of Kayla N. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 8:23 am
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]
18 Jan 2021, 7:58 pm
County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, and my 3/3/20 post on it can be found here. [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 3:19 pm
Kern County Board of Supervisors (2017) _____ Cal.App.5th _____ (“AIR”), my post on which can be found here. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 4:35 pm
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]
8 Jun 2023, 8:49 am
Kern County Bd. of Supervisors (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 708 at page 752, blogged on here.) [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 4:16 am
[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
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
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]
2 Jul 2024, 12:45 am
Kern/K. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 3:22 pm
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
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
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
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]
21 Jan 2015, 10:59 am
City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385), or is the agency’s decision subject to a threshold determination whether the modification of the project constitutes a “new project altogether,” as a matter of law (Save Our Neighborhood v. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 11:11 am
County of Kern (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 761 and California Clean Energy Committee v. [read post]
