Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (Docket No. 22-1074) is a United States Supreme Court case regarding permit exactions under the Takings Clause.The Supreme Court held, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that fees for land-use permits must be closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of the land use – the test established by Nollan v.
The California Reporter of Decisions is a reporter of decisions supervised by the Supreme Court of California responsible for editing and publishing the published opinions of the judiciary of California. The Supreme Court's decisions are published in official reporters known as California Reports and the decisions of the Courts of Appeal are ...
Justices on the state’s highest court unanimously ruled the measure known as the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” amounts to an illegal constitutional revision.
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 535; List of United States Supreme Court cases; Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (1997) holding a federal court should not consider a claim against an agency before the government has reached a “final” decision.
In 2002, the California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) started the Second-Generation Electronic Filing Specification (2GEFS) project. [5]After a $200,000 consultant's report declared the project ready for a final push, the Judicial Council of California scrapped the program in 2012 after $500 million in costs.
A small group of lawyers later recovered and compiled all the unreported opinions filed by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Commission before that point, which were published in a separate seven-volume reporter called California Unreported Cases starting in 1913. [2] [31] Despite its name, those cases are citable as precedent. [32]
Opinion Decided Summary Lefemine v. Wideman: 12-168: 2012-11-05 Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a plaintiff who obtained only a permanent injunction against government officials (but no money damages) was a "prevailing party," so the government must pay his attorney fees. United States v. Bormes: 11-192: 2012-11-13
Other California residents have taken the Supreme Court’s ruling and Democratic officials’ exuberant co-sign as further evidence of the nation’s growing disdain for society’s most ...