Search for: "City Council v. Superior Court" Results 61 - 80 of 396
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Mar 2023, 3:05 pm by Daniel F. Freedman
The Los Angeles Superior Court’s decision in the case, Yes In My Back Yard, Sonja Trauss, and Janet Jha v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 4:10 am
At-will employee’s claims of wrongful termination and defamation rejected by courtDiLacio v New York City Dist. [read post]
18 Aug 2014, 1:38 pm
As a preamble, why should you care about a new petition in Superior Court? [read post]
StatusIn this second July 5 ruling, the same San Francisco Superior Court held in favor of the city, again relying heavily on Upland.13 About half of the decision addressed arguments identical to or similar to those addressed in the other action. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 5:34 am by Patricia Salkin
The Plaintiffs, Cannabis Action Coalition, sued the city of Kent, its city council, and its mayor Suzette Cook (collectively Kent) in King County Superior Court, seeking to have the Ordinance declared preempted and invalid. [read post]
11 Jan 2015, 8:16 am by John H Curley
  The cba between the City of Beverly, MA and AFSCME Council 93 had a term from 1992-2002. [read post]
31 Oct 2007, 4:17 am
  The court summarized its holding as follows:Today, we review the Bainbridge Island City (City) Council's adoption of rolling moratoria, which imposed a multi-year freeze on private property development in shoreline areas. [read post]
31 Oct 2007, 4:17 am
  The court summarized its holding as follows:Today, we review the Bainbridge Island City (City) Council's adoption of rolling moratoria, which imposed a multi-year freeze on private property development in shoreline areas. [read post]
1 Aug 2012, 9:57 am by Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law
  The appeal arose out of a writ of mandate case heard before Judge Donald Alvarez of the San Bernardino Superior Court (San Bernardino Superior Court Case CIVSS 810834). [read post]
10 Sep 2018, 11:19 pm by William W. Abbott
Superior Court (1988) 45 Cal.3d 491, in which the California Supreme Court concluded that implementation of special legislation concerning transportation facility funding in Orange was reserved exclusively to city councils and board of supervisors, not the voters. [read post]