Search for: "Starr v. City and County of San Francisco"
Results 21 - 40
of 73
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jul 2013, 4:14 pm
City and County of San Francisco, et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3, 5/31/13) ____ Cal.App.4th ____, 2013 WL 3209381.) [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 8:52 am
City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656 for the principle that the “social inconvenience of having to hunt for scarce parking spaces is not an environmental [read post]
23 May 2022, 10:16 am
On May 12, 2022, the First District Court of Appeal filed a 108-page published opinion affirming a judgment denying a CEQA writ petition that challenged Marin County’s approval of a 43-lot single-family residential subdivision on a 110-acre parcel atop a mountain overlooking the Town of Tiburon and San Francisco Bay. [read post]
26 Jul 2016, 10:52 am
In a short but significant published opinion filed July 19, 2016, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the San Francisco County Superior Court’s judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of demurrers (without leave to amend) to a CEQA action as time-barred. [read post]
3 Oct 2019, 3:51 pm
San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. [read post]
5 Dec 2016, 3:40 pm
City and County of San Francisco (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 863, 882 [10-cent disposable bag fee held part of proposed ordinance from inception, not mitigation measure].) [read post]
26 Apr 2016, 1:46 pm
The case – Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. [read post]
8 Feb 2022, 10:29 am
(Citing Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 4:14 pm
City and County of San Francisco (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 893, 910.) [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 12:38 pm
Further, because an agency’s general plan consistency determinations are reviewed by ordinary mandamus (see San Francisco Tomorrow v. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 12:38 pm
Further, because an agency’s general plan consistency determinations are reviewed by ordinary mandamus (see San Francisco Tomorrow v. [read post]
16 Nov 2023, 12:24 pm
City and County of San Francisco (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 863; Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. [read post]
27 Dec 2016, 1:32 pm
” (Citing Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 3:12 pm
City and County of San Francisco (“SFUDP”) (1st Dist. 2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656 and was “unpersuaded by its reasoning” on the “parking” issue. [read post]
24 Nov 2015, 12:03 pm
San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. [read post]
3 May 2021, 9:58 am
City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 329-330 (my April 5, 2019 post on which can be found here) in setting out the general CEQA principles and standards governing its review in a case challenging an EIR’s content and analysis. [read post]
5 Aug 2020, 2:39 pm
The Court found instructive San Francisco Tomorrow v. [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 11:56 am
Berkeley Hillside Preservation, et al. v. [read post]
12 May 2014, 12:21 pm
On May 28, 2014, at 9 a.m. in its San Francisco courtroom, the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument in this significant Fifth District case (Supreme Ct., Case No. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 2:25 pm
City of Lodi (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 865, 875, fn. 8; Tomlinson v. [read post]
