Search for: "Miller v. Board of Supervisors" Results 21 - 40 of 99
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Mar 2015, 11:19 am by Arthur F. Coon
In a 46-page majority opinion written by Justice Chin and joined by four other justices, punctuated by an 18-page concurring opinion (by Justice Liu, joined by Justice Werdegar) which reads like a dissent, the California Supreme Court reversed the First District Court of Appeal’s judgment in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. [read post]
27 Oct 2019, 5:08 pm by INFORRM
Internet and Social Media The Bar Standards Board has issued new Social Media Guidance. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 11:53 am by Arthur F. Coon
  The Commission certified the FEIR and voted 3-2 to recommend the staff alternative to County’s Board of Supervisors. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 5:57 am
The school district’s attorney, Frank Miller, Esq., said. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 1:53 pm by Arthur F. Coon
  The consultant thus concluded CEQA’s recirculation requirement was not triggered, and the Commission recommended approval of the modified plan to County’s Board of Supervisors. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 10:22 am by Arthur F. Coon
Napa County Board of Supervisors (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 162 (holding Napa County’s revised lot line adjustment ordinance properly classified lot line adjustment decisions consistent with the Map Act’s exemption as ministerial in nature and exempt from CEQA); Friends of Juana Briones House v. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 11:27 am by Arthur F. Coon
Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 125 [“Environmental conditions may vary from year to year and in some cases it is necessary to consider conditions over a range of time periods. [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]
24 Apr 2017, 2:32 pm by Arthur F. Coon
Napa County board of Supervisors (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 162, 178), the Court stated it would review an agency’s related factual determinations for substantial evidence and pure questions of law de novo. [read post]