Search for: "Kern v. State" Results 81 - 100 of 283
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 May 2018, 3:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
However, the Court of Appeals instructs that FOIL is to be "liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government" (Matter of Town of Waterford v New York State Dept. of Envtl. [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 4:31 pm by Arthur F. Coon
Kern County Board of Supervisors (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 708, also addressed important CEQA baseline and railroad operation preemption issues. [read post]
It rejected the Council’s claim that the County improperly piecemealed the CEQA analyses for each amendment, because, as stated in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 3:19 pm by Arthur F. Coon
Kern County Board of Supervisors (2017) _____ Cal.App.5th _____ (“AIR”), my post on which can be found here. [read post]
It rejected the Council’s claim that the County improperly piecemealed the CEQA analyses for each amendment, because, as stated in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
It rejected the Council’s claim that the County improperly piecemealed the CEQA analyses for each amendment, because, as stated in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 4:04 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
(2) Does the ICCTA preempt a state agency’s voluntary commitments to comply with CEQA as a condition of receiving state funds for a state owned rail line and/or leasing state-owned property? [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 3:22 pm by Arthur F. Coon
  Also filing and letters in support of the opinion remaining published were the California State Association of Counties, California Building Industry Association, Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation, the County of Kern, a private developer (Cross Development, LLC) represented by Remy Moose Manley, and the law firm of Downey Brand LLP. [read post]