Search for: "Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton"
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2010, 3:07 pm
Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
29 Nov 2012, 1:30 am
Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 1:57 am
However, it confirms the principle set forth in the recent California Supreme Court’s Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 10:26 am
In a lengthy opinion for Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 10:05 pm
Relying upon Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
19 Sep 2012, 1:56 pm
The Court harmonized its holding with the language of the Supreme Court in Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
19 Sep 2012, 1:56 pm
” The Court harmonized its holding with the language of the Supreme Court in Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 2:11 pm
Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 43 [NODs]; Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 10:31 am
In Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 10:20 am
” (Quoting Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 2:30 pm
The court's full opinion addressing the applicability of section 21167(e) is not expected until sometime in April when the court issues its opinion in Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 4:17 pm
Food for Thought As many of you die-hard CEQA lovers know, the Supreme Court is expected to hear oral argument in the Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
17 Dec 2007, 9:57 am
In Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
17 Dec 2007, 9:57 am
In Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
21 Sep 2020, 1:26 pm
(E.g., Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 3:57 pm
This approach would seem to be more in keeping with the California Supreme Court’s determination in Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
5 Jan 2016, 3:53 pm
The filing of a facially-valid Notice of Exemption (NOE) triggers a 35-day statute of limitations (Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
1 Jun 2021, 8:52 am
” (Citing Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 10:43 am
See City's New General Plan is not Cleared for Take-off, Returns to Base and is Grounded. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 8:41 am
The Court of Appeal’s Opinion In reviewing de novo the issue whether petitioners’ action was time-barred, the Court observed that CEQA requires untimely actions to be dismissed (citing CEQA Guidelines, § 15112(b); Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
