Search for: "Light City, LLC"
Results 521 - 540
of 1,110
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Feb 2011, 3:19 am
Subsequently, while [*4]plaintiff proceeded as a pro se litigant, the remaining false arrest claim against the non-city defendants was dismissed [exhibit 1 of cross-motion]. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 12:37 pm
Our firm has also handled many shareholder and LLC disputes between owners of closely held corporations, and LLCs. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 9:28 pm
City of San Diego, S238563. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 3:57 am
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 9:53 am
The City of Midlothian, Texas, No. 10-0150 (DB). [read post]
State v. Cain and State v. Simms – NJ Supreme Court Reaffirms the Role of the Jury as Trier of Facts
3 Apr 2016, 7:45 am
Friedman, LLC represents defendants accused of narcotics crimes in the State and federal courts of New Jersey and New York City. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 5:39 pm
City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171 The City of San Diego amended its zoning code to permit cannabis enterprises as a use within a number of zoning districts in the City. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 5:39 pm
City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171 The City of San Diego amended its zoning code to permit cannabis enterprises as a use within a number of zoning districts in the City. [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 12:51 am
The City argued the project was ineligible for the following reasons: (1) the project violated the City’s requirements that projects meet certain performance standards for off-site impacts and not exceed certain amount and intensity of use requirements; (2) the project was located within a three-block area designated as a City Landmark for the state-listed historical resource known as the West Berkeley Shellmound (“Shellmound”), and would have, thus,… [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 12:51 am
The City argued the project was ineligible for the following reasons: (1) the project violated the City’s requirements that projects meet certain performance standards for off-site impacts and not exceed certain amount and intensity of use requirements; (2) the project was located within a three-block area designated as a City Landmark for the state-listed historical resource known as the West Berkeley Shellmound (“Shellmound”), and would have, thus,… [read post]
27 Oct 2023, 7:12 am
(relisted after the Sept. 26, Oct. 6 and Oct. 13 conferences) 335-7 LLC v. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 5:52 am
Simply being registered to do business was similarly held not to constitute consent in Chatwal Hotels & Resorts LLC v. [read post]
19 Jul 2019, 3:00 am
The filing sheds a little more light on an elaborate lobbying and public relations effort orchestrated by Paul Manafort starting more than seven years ago on behalf of the Ukrainian government and Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s president at the time and Manafort’s client. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 1:03 pm
Up for a second relist are City of St. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 10:06 pm
City of San Diego, S238563. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 3:00 am
The City argued the project was ineligible for the following reasons: (1) the project violated the City’s requirements that projects meet certain performance standards for off-site impacts and not exceed certain amount and intensity of use requirements; (2) the project was located within a three-block area designated as a City Landmark for the state-listed historical resource known as the West Berkeley Shellmound (“Shellmound”), and would have, thus,… [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 11:42 am
This derivative lawsuit, filed by four New York City pension funds (The New York City Employees’ Retirement System, The Teachers’ Retirement System of the City of New York, The New York City Fire Department Pension Fund and the New York City Board of Education Retirement System) alleged that Alphabet Inc. [read post]
14 Nov 2019, 1:17 pm
Because Project applicants (the City of San Diego (“City”) and One Park Boulevard, LLC (“One Park”) were indispensable parties, the Coalition was required to name them in the original complaint against the Commission’s certification (the action being challenged). [read post]
14 Nov 2019, 1:17 pm
Because Project applicants (the City of San Diego (“City”) and One Park Boulevard, LLC (“One Park”) were indispensable parties, the Coalition was required to name them in the original complaint against the Commission’s certification (the action being challenged). [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 2:05 pm
New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 654 (1989)). [read post]
