Search for: "Associated Utility Services v. Bd. of Review"
Results 1 - 20
of 36
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2023, 10:54 am
[Here's a draft of my article, on the constitutionality of anti-BDS laws and other related matters, forthcoming in a symposium at The University of the Pacific Law Review.] [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 10:50 pm
Cases 331]; see also County of Sonoma/Health Services Dept. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 12:30 pm
The opponents sued, and the trial court ruled for the Association, finding the Class 23 exemption to be appropriate, and rejecting the arguments concerning unusual circumstances and that the exemption was invalid on the grounds that the agency relied upon mitigation (the MMP) as a basis for utilizing the exemption. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am
The opponents sued, and the trial court ruled for the Association, finding the Class 23 exemption to be appropriate, and rejecting the arguments concerning unusual circumstances and that the exemption was invalid on the grounds that the agency relied upon mitigation (the MMP) as a basis for utilizing the exemption. [read post]
18 Nov 2018, 7:12 pm
State Bd. of Ed. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2023, 5:24 am
Appeals Bd. [read post]
Appellate Court Shuts Out Trial Court in CEQA/ESA Double Header under Deferential Standard of Review
3 Apr 2014, 11:08 am
Both federal and state environmental review were necessitated for the project, however the appellate court only reviewed the relevant state law issues. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 7:41 pm
As the City’s ordinance did not give the City authority to mitigate environmental impacts not otherwise associated with design features, the appellate court ruled that the exemption was appropriate, following the logic in Bowman v. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 6:13 pm
Bd. of Trs., 489 U.S. 468, 479 (1989). [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 9:01 pm
Public Utilities Commission (striking down a California regulatory ruling that required a public utility to include in its mailings to customers an insert from an organization critical of the utility); and Hurley v. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 3:00 am
UPDATE Ministerial v. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 3:00 am
UPDATE Ministerial v. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 9:28 pm
Exempt From CEQA Review World Business Academy v. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 11:57 pm
Exempt From CEQA Review Bottini v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 7:03 am
Newport News School Bd, et al. , 2023 Va. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 6:13 pm
Bd. of Trs., 489 U.S. 468, 479 (1989). [read post]
14 Aug 2019, 7:32 am
(See, Bd. [read post]
4 Apr 2018, 10:30 pm
State Air Resources Bd. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 77. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 3:37 pm
Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
16 Jul 2023, 10:41 pm
LEXIS 71 , petition for writ of review denied 6/16/2023 Injury AOE/COE—COVID-19—Burden of Proof—Rebuttal of COVID-19 Presumption—WCAB, denying reconsideration, affirmed its prior decision [see Sevillano v. [read post]
