Search for: "Muzzy"
Results 21 - 40
of 42
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2016, 3:09 pm
” (Quoting Muzzy Ranch Co. v. [read post]
28 May 2008, 4:31 pm
Muzzy, 434 Mass at 411 The conduct complained of must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to interfere unreasonably with the work performance of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s situation. [read post]
8 Jul 2012, 7:35 am
., Chief Justice Smith's opinion in the New Hampshire Supreme Court decision, Muzzy v. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 4:53 pm
What they might argue is the rather muzzy domestic law tort that the government has interfered with their business contracts. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 5:02 pm
” (Citing Muzzy Ranch Co. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 2:05 am
Dave McCool is CEO of Muzzy Lane, a technology company specializing in game-based learning and development solutions. [read post]
9 Mar 2017, 4:32 pm
Muzzy Ranch Co. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 11:50 am
(See Muzzy Ranch v. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 8:27 am
” How can you not trust someone who calls himself ‘Muzzy’? [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 10:03 pm
(Muzzy Ranch Co. v. [read post]
21 Sep 2021, 1:44 pm
City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171, reaffirmed its Muzzy Ranch decision’s “abstract” and “theoretical” threshold legal test for whether a proposed activity constitutes a “project” subject to CEQA – an inquiry that occurs at the “first tier” of the CEQA review process and a test that is easily satisfied where the activity simply has the “potential” to result in a direct, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect, change… [read post]
11 Nov 2020, 8:52 pm
City of San Diego (”UMMP”) (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171 (my post on which can be found here) and Muzzy Ranch Co. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 3:31 pm
…” (Quoting Muzzy Ranch Co. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2021, 9:43 am
Metropolitan Water Dist. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 382, 402 & fn. 11; Muzzy Ranch Co. v. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 3:24 pm
On September 18 and October 5, 2015, I posted Parts I and II, respectively, of my comments on OPR’s August 11, 2015 Preliminary Discussion Draft of its “Proposed Updates to the CEQA Guidelines” (the “Discussion Draft”). [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 11:19 am
In a 46-page majority opinion written by Justice Chin and joined by four other justices, punctuated by an 18-page concurring opinion (by Justice Liu, joined by Justice Werdegar) which reads like a dissent, the California Supreme Court reversed the First District Court of Appeal’s judgment in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 10:29 am
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) has spent five years drafting a comprehensive update to 30 sections of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines.[1] The updated text[2] (“Final Text”) ensures the Guidelines are consistent with recent court decisions, implements legislative changes, clarifies rules governing the CEQA process, and eliminates duplicative analysis. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 10:09 am
” (Citing Muzzy Ranch Co. v. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 3:13 pm
AB 890 (Medina – D), recently sent to Governor Brown for action by October 15, seeks to amend Government Code § 65867.5 and to add §§ 65363 and 65850.10 to prevent development agreements and certain types of land use planning and zoning legislation from being enacted by local voter-sponsored land use initiatives. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 3:13 pm
AB 890 (Medina – D), recently sent to Governor Brown for action by October 15, seeks to amend Government Code § 65867.5 and to add §§ 65363 and 65850.10 to prevent development agreements and certain types of land use planning and zoning legislation from being enacted by local voter-sponsored land use initiatives. [read post]
