Search for: "Order Amending E-Filing Project."
Results 1 - 20
of 738
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Mar 2011, 9:44 pm
The amending order promulgated templates for local rules governing electronic copies and electronic filings in the courts of appeals. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 9:44 pm
The amending order promulgated templates for local rules governing electronic copies and electronic filings in the courts of appeals. [read post]
5 Nov 2007, 8:36 am
That project continued this fiscal year. [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 2:43 pm
Neither the complaint, amended complaint or answer had been e-filed, and the parties hadn’t stipulated to e-filing. [read post]
6 May 2010, 11:02 am
The Texas Supreme Court has issued a new order to amend and replace its original order about e-filing, which I wrote about in February. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 1:28 pm
WHAT TO DO IF YOU SUSPECT YOUR EB-5 PROJECT IS IN TROUBLE By: Catherine DeBono Holmes, Esq., Daniel B Lundy, Esq. and Jeffrey E. [read post]
23 Mar 2022, 5:43 am
Now, counsel for Project Veritas has filed a motion detailing what could be a very serious violation of court orders as well as an attack on free speech and free press. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 1:28 pm
WHAT TO DO IF YOU SUSPECT YOUR EB-5 PROJECT IS IN TROUBLE By: Catherine DeBono Holmes, Esq., Daniel B Lundy, Esq. and Jeffrey E. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 7:52 pm
Right now, in order to cut down on child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) on their services, many providers of online services (such as social media, webmail, and cloud storage) voluntarily scan files in users’ accounts for CSAM. [read post]
2 Feb 2009, 6:22 am
In a sudden rash of common sense, the Federal government has shelved implementation of the controversial proposed regulation, based upon an amendment to Executive Order 12989, that would make use of the Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify System mandatory for contractors working on Federal projects. [read post]
7 Feb 2023, 12:07 pm
In an opinion in a much-publicized case, filed December 28, 2022, and later ordered published on January 26, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 3), upheld the City of Livermore’s (“City”) approval of a 130-unit affordable housing project on a downtown infill site and its accompanying determination that the project was CEQA-exempt under Government Code section 65457 (“Section 65457”). [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 2:57 pm
FERC amended the conditional license to incorporate the terms and conditions contained in the CZMA certification and the WQC. [read post]
25 Oct 2012, 4:43 pm
To date, only five counties in Illinois have been approved to operate e-filing systems as part of a pilot project, mostly on a limited basis. [read post]
28 Aug 2016, 7:10 pm
The court addressed four examples in its opinion: Where Defendant responded to certain RFPs by objecting and stating that “[Defendant] has limited its search to the e-mail.PST files for project management for the subject project, and has produced all non-privileged e-mails and attachments identified therein relating to the subject project,” the court found that the response complied with Rule 34(b)(2)(C). [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 6:38 am
DOL is expected to file its response to the amended complaint by March 20, 2024. [read post]
30 May 2023, 5:02 pm
Resources Code, § 21080.09(e)(1).) [read post]
27 Mar 2020, 6:32 pm
In a 74-page opinion filed February 24, and later ordered published on March 17, 2020, the Second District Court of Appeal (Division 7) affirmed judgments (granting the writ petition and awarding fees) in coordinated appeals stemming from a CEQA action successfully challenging the City of Agoura Hills’ (City) project approvals and mitigated negative declaration (MND) for a mixed use development project on an undeveloped 8.2 acre parcel. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 10:31 am
The reasoning used by the Fourth Appellate District for ordering the County to bear the cost of the planning commission transcript was that the transcript had not been prepared prior to the Board’s decision on the Project and thus, was not “presented to the decisionmaking body prior to action on the environmental documents or on the project” under Section 21167.6(e)(4). [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 5:03 pm
In November 2004, two petitions for writ of mandate were filed challenging certification of the EIR. [read post]
10 Nov 2016, 8:58 am
On November 7, 2016, the Third District Court of Appeal filed a published opinion mostly upholding the EIR for a 48.75-acre, 328-unit residential infill project (known as McKinley Village) against various CEQA challenges, and finding the Project to be consistent with the City of Sacramento’s general plan. [read post]
