Search for: "City & County of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of California" Results 1 - 20 of 22
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Apr 2012, 2:36 pm by Cynthia L. Hackerott
Both Connerly and ACRI were permitted by the district court to intervene in the present case and were represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative/libertarian public interest litigation firm that has successfully represented proponents of Section 31 in other cases, including Coral Constr, Inc v City & County of San Francisco (CalSCt (2010); 93 EPD ¶43,961) and Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc v City of San Jose… [read post]
26 Apr 2016, 1:46 pm by Arthur F. Coon
  Amicus curiae filing briefs in support of the College District’s position include the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, Association of California Water Agencies, California Building Association, Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, California Business Properties Association, and the Regents of the University of California. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 9:04 am by Abbott & Kindermann
City and County of San Francisco (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 950: The lead agency correctly applied a Class 3 CEQA exemption to applications for permits to add wireless equipment throughout the City and County of San Francisco. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am by Abbott & Kindermann
City and County of San Francisco (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 209. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 10:19 am by Abbott & Kindermann
The Regents of the University of California (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 227: The EIR for projects located within the southeast quadrant of the U.C. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 12:30 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
City and County of San Francisco (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 209. [read post]
18 Jan 2021, 7:58 pm by Arthur F. Coon
The Regents of the University of California (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 226, and my 7/2/20 post on it can be found here. [read post]
23 May 2019, 7:12 am by John Elwood
The Supreme Court took a case raising a similar question in City and County of San Francisco v. [read post]