Search for: "City and County of San Francisco v. Post"
Results 141 - 160
of 477
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Sep 2015, 2:25 pm
City of Lodi (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 865, 875, fn. 8; Tomlinson v. [read post]
18 Apr 2022, 8:58 am
City of County of San Francisco. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 6:17 pm
City and County of San Francisco, where the Court held that there was no way to preserve a federal takings claim if an owner seeks just compensation in state court. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 12:13 pm
City and County of San Francisco, 10-1034, which involves an Establishment Clause challenge to a resolution by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors urging Cardinal William Joseph Levada to withdraw his directive that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with same-sex couples. [read post]
5 Aug 2020, 2:39 pm
The Court found instructive San Francisco Tomorrow v. [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 11:56 am
Berkeley Hillside Preservation, et al. v. [read post]
3 May 2021, 9:58 am
City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 329-330 (my April 5, 2019 post on which can be found here) in setting out the general CEQA principles and standards governing its review in a case challenging an EIR’s content and analysis. [read post]
16 May 2016, 2:48 pm
City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2014). [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 3:12 pm
City and County of San Francisco (“SFUDP”) (1st Dist. 2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656 and was “unpersuaded by its reasoning” on the “parking” issue. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 12:38 pm
Further, because an agency’s general plan consistency determinations are reviewed by ordinary mandamus (see San Francisco Tomorrow v. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 12:38 pm
Further, because an agency’s general plan consistency determinations are reviewed by ordinary mandamus (see San Francisco Tomorrow v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 5:00 pm
City and County of San Francisco; and (2) whether, alternatively, federal courts can and should waive Williamson County’s state litigation requirement for prudential reasons when a federal takings claim is factually concrete without state procedures, as some circuit courts hold, or apply the requirement as a rigid jurisdictional barrier, as other circuits hold. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am
City and County of San Francisco (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 209. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 3:46 pm
City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005), which held that a state court’s resolution of a claim for just compensation under state law generally has preclusive effect in any subsequent federal suit. [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 1:47 pm
The city and county of San Francisco, California's governor and its attorney general all opposed a stay. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 11:13 am
Ct.)As readers of this site know, I have been monitoring a lawsuit in Alameda, a San Francisco Bay Area city. [read post]
22 Jun 2019, 6:32 am
City and County of San Francisco, often means that local takings plaintiffs are barred from federal court altogether, a consequence that Williamson County did not foreshadow or perhaps even foresee. [read post]
30 Nov 2007, 5:23 am
The city relied upon the ripeness rule of Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. [read post]
30 Aug 2017, 3:02 am
” [Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune/syndicated] Wales: “Mute and autistic girl was seized from family and locked up after false abuse claims” [Lucy Johnston, Express] On “facilitated communication” and the like, see earlier posts here and here; California bill would extend pre-litigation subpoena power, a powerful tool in inflicting cost and loss of privacy on targets, from current holders (state AG, county DAs) to city attorneys in… [read post]
27 Aug 2018, 8:36 am
That is far less common in more recent cases.Alameda County, California is a large county including the City of Oakland and a lot of other areas as well. [read post]
