Search for: "L&S Development LLC" Results 621 - 640 of 1,593
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jan 2018, 2:29 pm by SHanson
The post California Real Estate Company Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy appeared first on Law Office of Seth L. [read post]
In addition, the Council challenged the negative declaration for the hotel amendment, arguing the CEQA analysis failed to consider the impacts of future development that would be permitted by the ordinance. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 1:31 pm by Schachtman
Mentor Worldwide, LLC, case no. 2:16-cv-01026, 2017 WL 5235619 (C.D. [read post]
9 Dec 2017, 1:07 am by Lorene Park
In case you missed Employment Law Daily’s in-depth coverage, here’s a brief recap of some of the key developments in the L&E community for November. [read post]
1 Dec 2017, 5:00 pm by Ad Law Defense
Dominos Pizza LLC, No. [read post]
14 Nov 2017, 5:09 pm by SHanson
TechShop’s guiding motto was “Don’t try it at home, try it here! [read post]
9 Nov 2017, 6:31 am by Wolfgang Demino
,majority) (Frost, C.J., dissenting).MAJORITY PANEL OPINION IN GODOY V WFBNAGERALD GODOY, Appellant,v.WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee.No. 14-16-00599-CV.Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston.Majority and Dissenting Opinions Opinions filed October 31, 2017.Kathleen Hoekstra Boll, Charles L. [read post]
9 Nov 2017, 6:31 am by Wolfgang Demino
,majority) (Frost, C.J., dissenting).MAJORITY PANEL OPINION IN GODOY V WFBNAGERALD GODOY, Appellant,v.WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee.No. 14-16-00599-CV.Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston.Majority and Dissenting Opinions Opinions filed October 31, 2017.Kathleen Hoekstra Boll, Charles L. [read post]
” As to the hotel amendment, the court found that the County’s analysis properly considered some potential impacts of future development, but concluded that additional impacts described by the Council were speculative and, thus, were not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the amendment. [read post]
” As to the hotel amendment, the court found that the County’s analysis properly considered some potential impacts of future development, but concluded that additional impacts described by the Council were speculative and, thus, were not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the amendment. [read post]