Search for: "Arthur F. Coon"
Results 281 - 300
of 466
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jun 2024, 8:37 am
“It ain’t over ‘til it’s over. [read post]
30 May 2023, 5:02 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 1:33 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 11:49 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
19 Jul 2019, 4:37 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
3 Mar 2021, 9:23 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 11:29 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 2:33 pm
In a published decision filed October 31, 2014 (Paulek v. [read post]
6 Sep 2016, 11:23 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
7 Jan 2013, 11:25 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
10 Jan 2023, 3:28 pm
As all CEQA practitioners know, a prospective petitioner in a writ proceeding challenging a CEQA determination must first exhaust available administrative remedies as a prerequisite to filing suit. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 11:49 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 12:45 pm
On February 27, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal (Division One) filed its published decision in Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 9:11 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 2:26 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 12:40 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
19 Oct 2017, 2:19 pm
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 11:25 am
In a 58-page published opinion filed June 30, 2016, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the Alameda County Superior Court’s judgment upholding the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) EIR for and approval of “Plan Bay Area,” the agencies’ first Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) prepared pursuant to California’s landmark “Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of… [read post]
21 Nov 2024, 8:33 am
Please contact Arthur F. [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 10:23 am
Preliminarily, the Court rejected real party Planned Parenthood’s argument that Respect Life lacked standing, observing that “[f]or a party to have standing to petition for a writ of mandate, the party must have a beneficial interest in the litigation. [read post]