Search for: "California Public Utilities Commission et al" Results 41 - 60 of 90
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Sep 2016, 12:17 pm by Arthur F. Coon
Santa Clara County (Lehigh Southwest Cement Company, et al., Real Parties in Interest) (2016) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, 2016 WL 9540085. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am by Abbott & Kindermann
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) before adopting an ordinance enacting a voter-sponsored initiative pursuant to Elections Code section 9214, subdivision (a)? [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 10:03 am by Abbott & Kindermann
 That alternative is backed by a diverse group that includes The Bay Institute, the Contra Costa Council, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Entrepreneurs, the Planning and Conservation League, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the San Diego County Water Authority, Alameda County Water District, Contra Costa Water District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Otay Water District, the City of San Diego and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.… [read post]
22 Oct 2012, 3:21 am by New Books Script
l al-fiqh / by Ihsan Abdul-Wajid Bagby. 1986 KBP 442 I38 1986 Utility in classical Islamic law : the concept of Mas? [read post]
23 May 2011, 2:20 am by Kelly
Advising inventors, their spouses, and their start-up companies: James Joyce v Armstrong Teasdale (Patently-O) District Court N D California: Use of patent reexamination evidence in parallel litigation: Volterra Semiconductor Corporation v Primarion Inc (Patents Post-Grant) District Court E D California: Government’s approval of false marking settlement precludes later challenge that settlement was “staged” and therefore lacks preclusive effect: Champion… [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 12:13 pm by John Elwood
California Public Utilities Commission, 10-838, for Talk America, Inc. v Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 10-313 and Isiogu v. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 6:44 am by Christa Culver
California Pharmacists AssociationDocket: 09-1158Issue(s): (1) Whether Medicaid recipients and providers may maintain a cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce § 1396a(a)(30)(A) by asserting that the provision preempts a state law reducing reimbursement rates; and (2) whether a state law reducing Medicaid reimbursement to providers may be held preempted by § 1396a(a)(30)(A) based on requirements that do not appear in the text of the statute.Certiorari-Stage… [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 10:22 pm by legalinformatics
Olmos Memorial Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 11:15 am by Steven M. Taber
But it was the ruling’s impact on utility regulation, not the cost, that prompted the appeals court to reverse the decision. [read post]