Search for: "5 Cal.4th 1"
Results 821 - 840
of 997
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jul 2017, 12:02 pm
San Diego Association of Governments (2017) __ Cal. 5th __, Supreme Court Case No., S223603 Judicial deference to a lead agency’s determination regarding the proper greenhouse gas (“GHG”) threshold for a project California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) remains a swinging pendulum. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 12:02 pm
San Diego Association of Governments (2017) __ Cal. 5th __, Supreme Court Case No., S223603 Judicial deference to a lead agency’s determination regarding the proper greenhouse gas (“GHG”) threshold for a project California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) remains a swinging pendulum. [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 2:04 pm
City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105, 1114; my March 3, 2015 post on that case can be found here.) [read post]
21 Oct 2021, 4:44 pm
County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 444, 456-457 [my 5/3/21 post on which can be found here].) [read post]
10 Oct 2016, 11:20 am
See Rule 9(j)(1)(iii), RLPR. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 6:32 am
Section 7601 of the civil practice law and rules is amended to 5 read as follows: 6 S 7601. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 7:35 am
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 25, 2008 US v. [read post]
7 Apr 2017, 2:57 pm
State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866, does not control this case. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 11:13 am
1. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 2:11 pm
March 5, 2010); Vitatoe v. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 7:15 pm
App. 4th 1461; 2010 Cal. [read post]
20 Aug 2009, 2:30 am
Cal. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 3:00 am
Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2021 4th Quarter cumulative CEQA update. [read post]
21 Apr 2008, 11:52 am
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2008 US v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 12:22 pm
To permit liability based on Rule 10b5-2(b)(1) would exceed the SEC’s § 10(b) authority to proscribe conduct that is deceptive. [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 1:09 pm
Rather, with respect to celebrities and world famous political figures, registration is denied based solely on the determinations that (1) “the public would recognize and understand the mark as identifying a particular living individual”; and (2) the record does not contain the famous person’s consent to register the mark.[1] Under this provision, the PTO routinely denies registration to marks that appear calculated to capitalize on the famous person’s name… [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:03 am
Cal. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 10:14 am
Endovascular Technologies, Inc., 182 Cal.App.4th 974 (Cal. [read post]
22 Sep 2014, 4:31 pm
Id. at 275, n. 5. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 10:37 am
Superior Court, 920 P.2d 1347, 1354 (Cal. 1996); Brown v. [read post]
