Search for: "*public Interest v. Bd. of Governors"
Results 61 - 74
of 74
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Nov 2014, 7:27 pm
Rev. 609 (1998) READ 620-636 Supreme Court of the United StatesRoy ROMER, Governor of Colorado, et al., Petitioners,v.Richard G. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 2:14 pm
” The Superior Court of Sacramento held that as a matter of law, the Governor is not a “public agency” for CEQA purposes. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 2:14 pm
” The Superior Court of Sacramento held that as a matter of law, the Governor is not a “public agency” for CEQA purposes. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 7:18 am
Detroit Bd. of Ed. therefore does not apply. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 10:22 am
The Supreme Court has recently generally emphasized that “common sense” is relevant at all levels of CEQA review, and observed in significant dicta that public interest standing is not “automatic,” but, rather, an exception to the normal beneficial interest standing requirement and subject to public policy limits. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 10:22 am
The Supreme Court has recently generally emphasized that “common sense” is relevant at all levels of CEQA review, and observed in significant dicta that public interest standing is not “automatic,” but, rather, an exception to the normal beneficial interest standing requirement and subject to public policy limits. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 10:06 pm
Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 11:22 am
Bd. of Cnty. [read post]
12 Nov 2011, 2:53 pm
Bd. of Trustees, 448 Pa. 424, 429-30, 292 A.2d 395, 398-99 (1972). [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 3:58 am
Decisions of interest involving Government and Administrative Law Source: Justia September 23, 2011 Gonzalez-Droz v. [read post]
20 Feb 2011, 10:37 am
Gloucester County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 409 N.J. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 4:05 am
” The court explained that when the speaker is a government employee, the public employer may restrict speech that “does not relate to matters of public concern as long as the employee’s interest in speaking does not outweigh the government’s interest in prohibiting him or her from doing so” under Pickering v. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 6:29 am
See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 7:42 am
Franchise Tax Bd., No. [read post]
