Search for: "In the Matter of Estate of Miller"
Results 561 - 580
of 902
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jan 2017, 9:07 am
In that case, Avary, as guardian of the estates of minors, brought suit against the fiduciary bank based on the bank's actions during the mediation of an underlying wrongful death suit. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 9:07 am
In that case, Avary, as guardian of the estates of minors, brought suit against the fiduciary bank based on the bank's actions during the mediation of an underlying wrongful death suit. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
When Willard’s widow sought to reopen his estate in order to exercise her statutory authority to waive the privilege for estate settlement purposes, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in In re Miller, 357 N.C. 316 (2003), found that her true purpose was not to effectuate the goals of the estate but to uncover information relevant to the murder investigation. [read post]
16 Sep 2021, 7:11 am
Miller Jr. [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 3:45 am
The overview was intended to reflect the most important matters on which management focuses in evaluating operating performance and financial condition. [read post]
4 Sep 2020, 4:35 pm
Consideration of plaintiffs’ improper baseline argument was held premature pending County’s determination, in the first instance on remand, and as a factual matter, whether the Retreat EIR retains informational relevance despite changes to the project and its circumstances; and then, if so, whether the changes require major revisions to the Retreat EIR due to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified… [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 3:31 pm
In a decision filed January 29, and belatedly ordered published on February 18, 2015, the Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected numerous CEQA (and other) challenges to the City of San Diego’s regular, after-the-fact coastal and site development permits authorizing already-completed emergency storm drainage repair work as well as site revegetation at a hillside site in La Jolla. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 6:04 pm
In affirming the trial court’s judgment in full, the Court of Appeal soundly rejected all of RCAs arguments, ruling as follows: As a matter of law, the RFEIR did not lack the “accurate, stable and finite project description” encompassing the “whole of [the] action” that is required by CEQA. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 4:29 pm
Whether an activity meets the definition of a categorically exempt project is determined by courts as a matter of law. [read post]
28 Aug 2020, 12:25 pm
Nor did its determination rely on factual determinations that would be reviewed with deference for substantial evidence, but instead constituted a claim that “the [ministerial] exemption applies to an entire category of permits, as a matter of law. [read post]
17 Jun 2016, 3:22 pm
Rejecting Wal-Mart’s facially plausible assertion that Government Code § 66474 applies only when an agency disapproves a map, and relying on a 1975 Attorney General Opinion it held persuasive and entitled to great weight, as well as one 1989 Court of Appeal case and two secondary sources, the Court held “the City was required to affirmatively address all of the matters covered by Government Code section 66474 before approving the parcel map. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 4:04 pm
In reinstating the 2010 Guidelines, which set forth new thresholds of significance for GHGs, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter), the Court of Appeal held that a public agency’s promulgation of thresholds of significance pursuant to the procedures of the CEQA Guidelines is not itself a “project” subject to CEQA review. [read post]
17 May 2021, 10:27 am
Thus, even though the record contained evidence supporting inferences of a lack of evidentiary support for one or more of the CEQA theories, a lack of factual investigation by the attorneys, and actual ill will of the Ranch toward Cal Coast, it was still insufficient to support an inference that the attorneys “knowingly pursued untenable claims or otherwise acted with malice” (emph. added); the record evidence was thus insufficient as a matter of law to establish the… [read post]
3 Jan 2022, 11:29 am
Importantly, Public Resources Code § 21168 and CCP § 1094.5 do not simply apply whenever an agency is required by law to hold a hearing on a matter, but only where the agency was acting in a quasi-adjudicatory capacity. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 9:18 am
While the litigation itself has not progressed beyond the pleading stage, it did not need to for the appellate court to issue an important published opinion resolving the most significant legal issues presented as a matter of law. [read post]
11 May 2017, 8:18 am
When all was said and done, it was a case of “same wine, different bottle” for Defendant and Appellant San Mateo Community College District (“District”) after the First District Court of Appeal’s published May 5, 2017 decision, following remand from the California Supreme Court, in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 3:57 pm
Further, the action against the District fell within Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 and would thus have to proceed as an administrative mandamus action challenging the District’s final decision on the Authority to Construct based on the record made in Friends’ administrative appeal and matters judicially noticeable. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 4:09 pm
• As an interpretive matter, according to the Court, “the [CESA] is tethered to the California Environmental Quality Act. [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 3:56 pm
“And all this science, I don’t understand It’s just my job, five days a week” – Elton John/Bernard Taupin, “Rocket Man” Having seen years of their lofty regional planning efforts come crashing back to Earth, San Diego government entities have had little to be thankful about so far this holiday season on the CEQA front. [read post]
28 Sep 2021, 10:40 am
Central Delta claimed that the analysis was deficient because it failed to take into account another complementary provision, but the trial court and Court of Appeal disagreed, noting this was a matter of differing contract interpretations. [read post]
