Search for: "Lafayette County Board of Supervisors"
Results 1 - 20
of 26
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Aug 2008, 10:15 am
The video below is an excerpt of the August 4th, 2008, Lafayette County Board of Supervisors' meeting during which three members of the board voted to keep the Lafayette County Circuit Court from returning to the historic courthouse on the Square. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 8:38 pm
"I believe this is in the best interest of all Lafayette County citizens," she told the board.The board also voted unanimously to allow the members of the Lafayette County Elections Commission to have space in the courthouse. [read post]
22 Aug 2008, 10:59 pm
Today the Lafayette County Bar Association formally requested that it be placed on the agenda for the upcoming meeting of the Board of Supervisors on September 2nd. [read post]
12 Aug 2008, 11:03 am
I'll continue to keep you updated.For more information see my previous posts on this subject.Lafayette County Board of Supervisors: Video Proof of a Bad DecisionLafayette County Courthouse - The Real StoryLafayette County's Historic Courthouse on the Square - Politicized [read post]
13 Jan 2013, 9:59 pm
On January 1, 1863, the New York Times reported that the New York County Board of Supervisors had been notified by the District Attorney that a court interpreter had been arrested on charges of defrauding the government. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 4:01 am
The Ongoing Debate About the Toxic Chemical The resolution, overwhelmingly approved by the LA County Board of Supervisors in mid-February, requests that Gov. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 6:11 am
LaFayette County Board of County Commissioners, June 20, 2016, Walker, M.). [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 12:51 am
County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 444. [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 12:51 am
County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 444. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 5:44 am
In its decision certified for partial publication, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court decision that: (1) no exhaustion was required because the County failed to give adequate notice that CEQA exemptions would be considered at the public hearing by the board of supervisors; and (2) that “facilities” in Section 15301 does not include the operation of unlined landfills. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 5:44 am
In its decision certified for partial publication, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court decision that: (1) no exhaustion was required because the County failed to give adequate notice that CEQA exemptions would be considered at the public hearing by the board of supervisors; and (2) that “facilities” in Section 15301 does not include the operation of unlined landfills. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 3:00 am
Plaintiffs sued the State Water Resources Control Board (the “Board”), alleging that the board violated the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by granting a small domestic use registration to real parties-in-interest without first conducting an environmental review. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 9:23 pm
Stanislaus County, S251709. [read post]
27 Oct 2020, 3:00 am
City of Lafayette, 7Cal.4th 327 (1994), held that the County’s use of the Ruiz pipe did not meet the requirements for inverse condemnation since the County needed to exert minimal control and maintenance over the watercourse near the Ruiz property since the County would be liable for damage caused by streamflow. [read post]
28 Nov 2007, 7:08 am
Louis South County CHADD P.O. [read post]
28 Sep 2020, 3:00 am
City of Lafayette, 7Cal.4th 327 (1994), held that the County’s use of the Ruiz pipe did not meet the requirements for inverse condemnation since the County needed to exert minimal control and maintenance over the watercourse near the Ruiz property since the County would be liable for damage caused by streamflow. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 3:00 am
City of Lafayette, 7Cal.4th 327 (1994), held that the County’s use of the Ruiz pipe did not meet the requirements for inverse condemnation since the County needed to exert minimal control and maintenance over the watercourse near the Ruiz property since the County would be liable for damage caused by streamflow. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 5:39 pm
County of Butte v. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 5:39 pm
County of Butte v. [read post]
16 Dec 2020, 3:00 am
King County, 2020 U.S. [read post]
