Search for: "DEPT OF FISH WILDLIFE PARKS v"
Results 1 - 10
of 10
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
6 Sep 2016, 7:14 am
Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n 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
Department’s Environmental Review The Department of Fish and Game’s (now the Department of Fish and Wildlife) (“department”) EIR at issue in the case relates to the general planning and conservation steps resulting from the County’s specific plan. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 8:59 am
<> The Hopi Tribe v. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 3:00 am
Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 7:41 pm
Bottini v. [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 5:28 pm
Sierra Club v. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 11:57 pm
California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am
Process waters include waters from concrete production manufacturing operations such as vehicle and equipment cleaning, and concrete truck washout and can contain caustic chemicals that are toxic to fish and other aquatic life. [read post]
