Search for: "City of Los Angeles v. Property Owners (1982)"
Results 1 - 15
of 15
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Sep 2014, 11:31 am
When Al Davis sought to move the Oakland Raiders to Los Angeles in 1982, the city sought to use the power of eminent domain to take ownership of the franchise. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 3:34 pm
(City of Los Angeles v. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 3:00 am
County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 314-315 (1987).) [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 3:00 am
County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 314-315 (1987).) [read post]
9 Aug 2017, 9:16 pm
As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities. [1] TrafFix Devices Inc. v. [read post]
9 Aug 2017, 9:16 pm
As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities. [1] TrafFix Devices Inc. v. [read post]
Appellate Court Shuts Out Trial Court in CEQA/ESA Double Header under Deferential Standard of Review
3 Apr 2014, 11:08 am
The EIR related to general planning and conservation steps resulting from Los Angeles County’s prior approval of a 12,000 acre specific plan and neighboring 1500 acre conservation area in Ventura County. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 12:30 pm
City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385), or is the agency’s decision subject to a threshold determination whether the modification of the project constitutes a “new project altogether,” as a matter of law (Save Our Neighborhood v. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 7:41 pm
A property owner sought a demolition permit (for an existing dilapidated home) and design approval for an eight-unit multi-family building. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 11:57 pm
California Coastal Comm. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158. [read post]
25 Dec 2022, 2:14 am
” Nor is this the only intellectual property case involving Christmas. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 11:06 am
The website of Defendant No. 1 was launched in India as well as in Los Angeles. [read post]
30 Sep 2022, 5:28 pm
Even in the context of prevention of secrecy in government, "the public interest in protecting the privacy of noise complainants and in preventing a chilling effect on complaints, clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure of complainants' names…" City of San Jose v. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 5:48 pm
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in State of Connecticut v. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 11:07 am
(G) If a lender did not comply with section 2923.5 and a foreclosure salehas already been held, does that noncompliance affect the title to the foreclosed propertyobtained by the families or investors who may have bought the property at theforeclosure sale? [read post]
