Search for: "Concerned Citizens v. Bd. of Adjustment"
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Aug 2022, 9:35 am
Examining the first requirement an area variance applicant needed to show, the court noted that in Dupont Circle Citizens Ass’n v D.C. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 9:53 am
When a fee claimant seeks to recover attorney's fees from an opposing party, it must put on evidence of reasonable hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, yielding a base figure that can be adjusted by considerations not already accounted for in either the hours worked or the rate. [read post]
Appellate Court Shuts Out Trial Court in CEQA/ESA Double Header under Deferential Standard of Review
3 Apr 2014, 11:08 am
Kindermann In a lengthy and unanimous reversal of the trial court on ESA and CEQA issues in Center for Biological Diversity v. [read post]
17 May 2019, 4:53 pm
Citizen v. [read post]
17 May 2019, 4:53 pm
Citizen v. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 12:30 pm
EXEMPTIONS Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v State of California (March 26, 2014, C070836) ___ Cal.App.4th ___. [read post]
18 May 2019, 9:27 am
Rohrmoos Venture v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am
EXEMPTIONS Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 7:06 pm
Jody James Farms, JV v. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 6:51 pm
In New York v. [read post]
25 Mar 2020, 6:03 pm
School Dist. of Mamaroneck, 370 F.3d 275, 286 (2d Cir. 2004); see also North Haven Bd. of Ed. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 3:58 am
In 1990 Arturas and Edita Bakanovas emigrated from Lithuania to Israel and became Israeli citizens. [read post]
29 Oct 2011, 2:33 pm
Decisions of interest involving Government and Administrative LawSource: Justia October 28, 2011 Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 9:28 pm
Sierra Club v. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 11:11 am
OPR proposes to add a new subdivision (f) to this section to codify the water supply analysis rules set forth in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 7:35 am
Newson, No. 06-41115 "A defendant is not entitled to a decrease under U.S.S.G. section 3E1.1(b) unless the Government files a motion requesting the adjustment. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 7:41 pm
The trial court held the County did not have discretion to shape a project to address environmental concerns, and the appellate court affirmed. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 11:57 pm
This case presents issues concerning the standard and scope of judicial review under the California Environmental Quality Act. [read post]
