Search for: "Los Angeles v. Los Angeles C. F. C. Dist."
Results 21 - 40
of 76
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Mar 2008, 5:00 am
Sirkin practices in Los Angeles County, California. [read post]
Appellate Court Shuts Out Trial Court in CEQA/ESA Double Header under Deferential Standard of Review
3 Apr 2014, 11:08 am
The EIR related to general planning and conservation steps resulting from Los Angeles County’s prior approval of a 12,000 acre specific plan and neighboring 1500 acre conservation area in Ventura County. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 8:52 am
County of Los Angeles, S226749. [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 12:03 pm
City of Los Angeles (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 768. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 11:56 am
County of Los Angeles (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 359, 367.) [read post]
14 Mar 2014, 2:18 pm
City of Los Angeles (2nd Dist. 2014) __ Cal.App.4th ___, Case No. [read post]
23 Jan 2008, 12:15 am
Superior Court of Los Angeles, 113 P.3d 1100 (Cal. 2005); Powertel, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Mar 2022, 2:55 pm
Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn. v. [read post]
7 Jul 2018, 9:04 am
City of Los Angeles, 2018 WL 3062304 (Cal. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 12:30 pm
City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385), or is the agency’s decision subject to a threshold determination whether the modification of the project constitutes a “new project altogether,” as a matter of law (Save Our Neighborhood v. [read post]
4 Feb 2008, 8:23 am
The FJC's analysis was limited to seven California superior courts and four California federal courts, but encompassed Los Angeles County, which has long had a hyperactive class action docket, and the FJC issued the usual caveats. [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 3:29 pm
Russel Covington, et al v. [read post]
3 Feb 2017, 11:10 am
City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385, 1396-97 (9th Cir. 1994). [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 4:52 pm
Sixth Dist. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 7:30 am
A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), or (2)(c) 4., commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084 [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am
City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385), or is the agency’s decision subject to a threshold determination whether the modification of the project constitutes a “new project altogether,” as a matter of law (Save Our Neighborhood v. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 12:18 pm
City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385)? [read post]
8 Nov 2012, 9:51 am
City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 272 — for the first time at oral argument; the quoted language explained that requiring EIRs for ministerial actions would be a wasteful gesture where the agency did not possess enough discretion to deny or modify the project based on environmental concerns raised by the EIR. [read post]
15 Oct 2012, 6:26 am
In Lavan v. [read post]
8 Nov 2012, 9:51 am
City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 272 — for the first time at oral argument; the quoted language explained that requiring EIRs for ministerial actions would be a wasteful gesture where the agency did not possess enough discretion to deny or modify the project based on environmental concerns raised by the EIR. [read post]
