Search for: "City of Sacramento v. Superior Court" Results 41 - 60 of 65
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Aug 2015, 8:28 am by Ralph L. Jacobson
Sacramento City Unified School Dist. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 821, the court denied application of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine where an adult student at a public school sought legal protection against the alleged negligence of District employees in failing to supervise and instruct him as to work he was doing: how to load wooden bleachers on a flatbed trailer. [read post]
16 Sep 2015, 7:50 am by Bonnie Maly, Esq.
In United States v Pickard, 2015 US Dist Lexis 51109, a federal district court judge in Sacramento held that Congress acted rationally in classifying marijuana as a Schedule I substance in light of the record before it. [read post]
16 Sep 2015, 7:50 am by Bonnie Maly, Esq.
In United States v Pickard, 2015 US Dist Lexis 51109, a federal district court judge in Sacramento held that Congress acted rationally in classifying marijuana as a Schedule I substance in light of the record before it. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 9:18 am
Ct., Nov. 30, 2007) Recently, San Bernardino Superior Court issued a ruling in Center for Biological Diversity v. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 2:41 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
City of Oakland); and the Supreme Court’s recognition of common sense as a tool in CEQA administration (Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 9:39 am
Separately, 10 Southern California cities and their redevelopment agencies[2] filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and a petition for a writ of mandate with the Superior Court for Sacramento County on September 26, 2011. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 9:39 am
Separately, 10 Southern California cities and their redevelopment agencies[2] filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and a petition for a writ of mandate with the Superior Court for Sacramento County on September 26, 2011. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 11:51 am by Arthur F. Coon
Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 13 [CEQA petitioners, as the parties “with the most to gain from any underinclusion,” bear “the burden of showing prejudice from any overinclusion of materials into the administrative record”]; Stockton Citizens For Sensible Planning v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 10:11 pm by Mike
The Superior Court granted the petition for habeas corpus and the California Court of Appeals reversed.   [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 1:12 pm by Arthur F. Coon
City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928, internal quotes omitted), and “[t]he petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate by citation to the record the existence of substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact. [read post]
4 Dec 2012, 8:30 am by azatty
Kimi Kondo, City of Seattle Municipal Court (Northwest Region) Carol C. [read post]