Search for: "May v. County of Monterey"
Results 41 - 60
of 93
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jul 2008, 8:12 pm
Alghussain , a 17-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:After the Indiana trial court granted the motion of Arwa Alghusain ("Mother") to transfer jurisdiction over her children's child support matters to her home county of Monterey County, California, Mahmoud M. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 12:30 pm
County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098). [read post]
Appellate Court Shuts Out Trial Court in CEQA/ESA Double Header under Deferential Standard of Review
3 Apr 2014, 11:08 am
The EIR related to general planning and conservation steps resulting from Los Angeles County’s prior approval of a 12,000 acre specific plan and neighboring 1500 acre conservation area in Ventura County. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 10:03 am
Water Supply County of Siskiyou v. [read post]
14 Apr 2014, 5:37 pm
Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 140.) [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 3:42 pm
County of Monterey (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 253. [read post]
17 Dec 2021, 11:52 am
The Project and the Commission’s Actions and Findings on the CDP Real Party Heritage obtained a CDP from Monterey County for a mixed-use subdivision project and the County prepared an EIR analyzing impacts and alternatives. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 11:27 am
North County Advocates v. [read post]
2 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm
” On its face, the plan sounds far-fetched; indeed, it may be tempting to treat this proposal as one of the hundreds of initiative ideas in California that never go anywhere. [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 4:31 pm
County of Monterey (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 883, upheld the propriety of an interlocutory remand in CEQA/land use writ litigation to allow a County’s Board to clarify its findings relating to the non-CEQA, general plan consistency issue, while applying a deferential standard of review and holding that “general plan consistency is not an issue reviewed under CEQA. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 3:00 am
The case and the Court’s summary is as follows: County of Butte v. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 10:51 am
A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a “historical resource” may, for that reason, have a significant effect on the environment for purposes of CEQA. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 5:44 am
The case and the Court’s summary is as follows: County of Butte v. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 5:44 am
The case and the Court’s summary is as follows: County of Butte v. [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 6:02 am
In Huerta v. [read post]
8 Mar 2007, 6:00 am
Yesterday, in Murphy v. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 3:24 pm
City of Monterey Park (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 394 [voter-approved ballot measure was funding mechanism or fiscal activity, not commitment to specific project with potential environmental impacts]; Cedar Fair, L.P. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 10:27 am
The case is very detailed as to the facts of the specific policies of the Big Sur Land Use Plan (“Plan”), contained within the Monterey County Local Coastal Program (“LCP”). [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 4:39 am
Defendants are deputy DAs with the Monterey and Marin County DA’s offices. [read post]
24 May 2016, 3:55 pm
Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 125-126), but strangely neglected to discuss potentially relevant future baseline authorities, including most prominently the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Neighbors for Smart Rail v. [read post]
