Search for: "COASTAL PLAIN AREA ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AUTHORITY INC"
Results 1 - 14
of 14
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jan 2019, 7:41 pm
Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. [read post]
7 Apr 2020, 3:00 am
(In this author’s opinion, this evaluation is not required.) [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 9:53 am
§ 21.001; AutoZone, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
It held that Caltrans improperly relied on section 103 as a statutory exemption, because its plain language was limited to the approval of a public works plan (such as the NCC project) by the Coastal Commission, not for the approval of a specific individual project by Caltrans. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 9:28 pm
The cases, listed newest to oldest, and the Court’s summaries are as follows: Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. [read post]
18 May 2019, 9:27 am
Apr. 26, 2019).While the resolution of the case pivots on issues of contract law in the leasing context, the lengthy portion of the opinion addressing the matter of attorneys fees [see cut & pasted below] will have much broader impact across a wide array of practice areas. [read post]
31 Oct 2009, 4:06 pm
Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 has reached an agreement with Sunoco Inc. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 11:57 pm
California Coastal Comm. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 8:43 am
According to the EPA, although phosphorus is a naturally-occurring nutrient, “in excess it can cause chemical and biological changes that degrade natural systems, such as wetlands, lakes, and coastal areas. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 5:39 pm
EXEMPTIONS Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 5:39 pm
EXEMPTIONS Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 3:00 am
It held that Caltrans improperly relied on section 103 as a statutory exemption, because its plain language was limited to the approval of a public works plan (such as the NCC project) by the Coastal Commission, not for the approval of a specific individual project by Caltrans. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 3:00 am
It held that Caltrans improperly relied on section 103 as a statutory exemption, because its plain language was limited to the approval of a public works plan (such as the NCC project) by the Coastal Commission, not for the approval of a specific individual project by Caltrans. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 3:00 am
It held that Caltrans improperly relied on section 103 as a statutory exemption, because its plain language was limited to the approval of a public works plan (such as the NCC project) by the Coastal Commission, not for the approval of a specific individual project by Caltrans. [read post]
