Search for: "In the Matter of Estate of Miller"
Results 681 - 700
of 902
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jul 2024, 10:12 am
Substantial Evidence Supported City’s Finding That Project Would Not Result In Significant Air Quality Impacts Appellant Nassiri argued a health risk assessment prepared by his retained environmental consultants (“SWAPE”) constituted unrebutted expert evidence that the project would have significant air quality impacts from emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), thus disqualifying the City from using the infill exemption for the project. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 4:33 pm
Maatman, Jr., Lorie Almon, and Mark Casciari, and complex discrimination litigation attorneys Richard Alfred, Brian Ashe, Brett Bartlett, Jeff Berman, Ariel Cudkowicz, Gil Diekmann, David Kadue, Ward Kallstrom, Joel Kaplan, Barry Miller, Camille Olson, Tom Piskorski, Jeff Ross, and Diana Tabacopoulos. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 1:00 am
Times Newspaper Ltd v Flood; Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd; Frost & Ors v MGN Ltd, heard 24-26 January 2017. [read post]
25 May 2009, 5:54 pm
In the matter of Miller v. [read post]
14 Jan 2008, 6:20 am
Miller Mfg. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 6:52 am
We represented a real estate investment trust in an action against an insurer for the costs of defense associated with a prior litigation. [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 1:34 pm
., as per Business Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates Ltd [2007] LT & R 389. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 1:00 am
Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes & Anor; Richborough Estate Partnership LLP & Anor v Cheshire East Borough Council, heard 22 and 23 Feb 2017. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 6:00 am
For historians, this is exactly why they matter. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 6:54 am
Appellant relies upon Miller v. [read post]
9 Jan 2023, 9:53 am
Pennsylvania law recognizes a separate property interest in the surface, and a distinct interest in the support estate. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 4:55 pm
Lishman (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1288), or a more deferential “substantial evidence” standard of review (as held by Mani Brothers Real Estate Group v. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 4:14 pm
Securities Litigation Blog Dealing with securities-related matters, and authored by attorneys John Jordak and Susan Hurd of Alston & Bird. [read post]
21 Oct 2021, 4:44 pm
The transitory construction impacts McCann complained of were not significant, substantial or permanent deprivations of her property interests, and her concerns about the aesthetic impacts of transformer box placements were akin to those of petitioners in other cases which held such concerns involved de minimus effects that as a matter of law did not trigger constitutional due process notice rights under Horn. [read post]
27 Aug 2018, 4:37 pm
As a factual matter, the Court noted the EIR compared existing traffic conditions at 60 studied intersections (based on an expert traffic consultant’s actual observations of 2010 conditions) to projected traffic in 2025, and explained that while traffic is expected to worsen, the Housing Element itself does not generate new trips, but provides direction for how inevitable new residential development should occur, emphasizing affordability. [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 1:35 pm
The Court held, as a matter of law (citing Creed-21 v. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 1:12 pm
In an opinion filed September 6, and later ordered published on October 7, 2019, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying plaintiff groups’ writ petition challenging Sonoma County’s use permit and related mitigated negative declaration (MND) for a winery project in the County’s rural Knights Valley area. [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 10:26 am
In actual fact, the SDMC did not provide that appeals of environmental determinations in Process Three matters must await exhaustion of all other administrative appeal rights. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 4:14 pm
In a unanimous 33-page opinion authored by Justice Ming Chin and issued on December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court addressed the standard of review for claims challenging the legal sufficiency of an EIR’s discussion of environmental impacts, and also CEQA’s rules regarding deferral and adequacy of mitigation measures. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 2:47 pm
For one, it exercised its discretion to consider plaintiffs’ wastewater disposal arguments on appeal, even though they were not presented to the trial court, because “issues concerning the adequacy of a CEQA disclosure present questions of law” and “matters involving [wastewater] disposal … affect the public interest …. [read post]
