Search for: "City of Alameda v. Superior Court"
Results 1 - 20
of 63
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 May 2018, 4:32 am
Atlantic Richfield Company, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1-00-CV-788657. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 8:53 am
(A131254; 203 Cal.App.4th 656; Alameda County Superior Court; RG10517314.) [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 12:24 pm
In the instant action, the district court concluded that the release provision in the 2001 Settlement was intended to bar the claims Emeryville is currently asserting against Sherwin-Williams in a separate action, which the Emeryville Redevelopment Agency filed in 2006 in Alameda County Superior Court (the State Court Action) to recover $32 million in clean-up costs from Sherwin-Williams and others for a different parcel (Site B), but only to the… [read post]
20 Jul 2007, 11:58 am
Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, 1291.) [read post]
18 Sep 2013, 3:25 pm
The cities and counties — Santa Clara County, San Francisco City, Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Monterey County, Oakland City, San Diego City, San Mateo County, Solano County and Ventura County — filed their 52-page statement of decision with the Santa Clara County Superior Court Friday. [read post]
23 Apr 2024, 2:22 pm
Washington, Alameda County Superior Court case no. [read post]
10 Oct 2023, 8:40 am
” (Citing and quoting City of Marina v. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 12:52 pm
Superior Court (2005) 37 Cal.4th 108. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 8:07 am
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]
31 Mar 2015, 12:28 pm
(B245131; 224 Cal.App.4th 1105; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS131347.) [read post]
11 May 2020, 12:12 pm
City of Berkeley), the Alameda County Superior Court held that SB 35 did not apply to a project in Berkeley because the project would have required the destruction of a historic shellmound, which the court determined constituted a “historic structure” under SB 35. [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 10:34 am
Co. v. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 11:25 am
City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 988.) [read post]
14 Jul 2015, 9:28 am
(A135335, A136212; 218 Cal.App.4th 1171; Alameda County Superior Court; RG10548693.) [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 1:15 pm
While the superior court discounted them for not specifically referring to the RFEIR’s project alternatives evaluation, we conclude they sufficed to fairly apprise the City of its position. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 10:54 pm
Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 617) because he failed to seek immediate review of the ruling by filing a petition for writ of mandate? [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 3:40 pm
In a related case, filed the same day, the Court held in Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 11:39 am
In a published opinion filed September 28, 2017, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the Alameda County Superior Court’s judgment denying appellant Living Rivers Council’s (LRC) writ petition challenging the State Water Resources Control Board’s (the “SWRCB” or “Board”) approval of a policy designed to maintain instream flows in coastal streams north of San Francisco. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 11:39 am
In a published opinion filed September 28, 2017, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the Alameda County Superior Court’s judgment denying appellant Living Rivers Council’s (LRC) writ petition challenging the State Water Resources Control Board’s (the “SWRCB” or “Board”) approval of a policy designed to maintain instream flows in coastal streams north of San Francisco. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 9:57 am
County of Alameda (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 629, and Dimon v. [read post]
