We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 163

Courts do not have the power to terminate an express road and utilities easement based on a finding they may not be necessary

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 25 2013

In Scruby v. Vintage Grapevine, Inc. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 697, the Court of Appeal held that the owner of the dominant tenement accessed by a

Laches does not preclude a prescriptive easement claim

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 26 2012

Every so often, that ancient and seemingly out-dated distinction between legal and equitable claims (and defenses) derived in the English Chancery Courts hundreds of years ago rears its head and reminds all attorneys that those distinctions between legal and equitable claims are still relevant

OPR to review specific CEQA guidelines topics proposed for 2014 update, solicits public input

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 29 2014

The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) will undertake a comprehensive review of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal.Code Regs., 15000 et

All about “commitment”: CEQA review is not triggered by Orange County’s AB 900 application for state funding to expand existing jail facility, which was not a project approval

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2013

In a decision recently ordered published, the Fourth District Court of Appeal added to the growing progeny of Save Tara, and affirmed the trial

Supreme Court will review CEQA decision from Fifth District in Wal-Mart citizen initiative case

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 15 2013

After receiving three separate petitions for review, including petitions from real parties Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and the City of Sonora, the

Navigating between CEQA’s Scylla and Charybdis: First District applies Save Tara analysis and rejects claims of improper project “preapproval” in Neighbors For Fair Planning v. City and County of San Francisco

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 16 2013

One of the most vexing issues arising under CEQA, particularly in cases of projects involving public-private partnerships or projects requiring

What’s in a name: in California, borrowers may be liable for purely innocent “bad faith” waste

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 10 2013

The phrase “bad faith” has been defined as, “intention to deceive; treachery or dishonesty”. When most attorneys hear the phrase “bad faith,” they think of

Churches and property: understanding the land use component of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 4 2011

Land use entitlements in California are affected by countless regulations, enactments, and policies

The new range wars: CEQA and the Williamson Act are deployed to fight global warming solutions in save Panoche Valley

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 3 2013

Nothing says "battle royal" quite like pitting several of California's heavyweight environmental laws against one another in a "winner-take-all"

CEQA doesn’t require the killing of mice with missiles: non-prejudicial notice errors do not require project set-aside

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 25 2011

CEQA’s information disclosure provisions are so integral to its statutory scheme that conventional harmless error analysis does not apply