DeutschNewstral
Article
jdsupra.com on 2021-08-13 22:22
Only Simple Majority Required (Again!): California Court of Appeal Holds SF’s Proposition G Citizen Initiative Did Not Require Supermajority Voter Approval; Reconsideration Request Pending
Related news
- SF’s Proposition E Links Office Allocation to Housing Productionjdsupra.com
- New OEHHA Proposition 65 Acrylamide Warning Label Does Little to Resolve Pending First Amendment Challenges - Updatejdsupra.com
- New OEHHA Proposition 65 Acrylamide Warning Label Does Little to Resolve Pending First Amendment Challengesjdsupra.com
- Massachusetts Agrees to Stay Question 3 Pork Enforcement Pending Supreme Court Proposition 12 Decisionjdsupra.com
- California Proposes Regulation that Proposition 65 Cancer Warnings Are Not Required for Coffeejdsupra.com
- California Supreme Court holds plaintiffs required to arbitrate individual Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims maintain standing for representative PAGA claims in court—but representative claims should be stayed pending resolution of individual claims in arbitrationjdsupra.com
- Special Taxes Enacted by Initiative Do Not Require Two-Thirds Supermajority Votejdsupra.com
Seattle Council's female supermajorityKING 5- GAO Considers Reconsiderationjdsupra.com
Hitting SF’s funny boneabqjournal.com
California Supreme Court should hear this challenge to Proposition 22sacbee.com
Proposition 22: Uber, Lyft drivers sue to overturn ballot measureSan Jose Mercury News- Fifth Appellate District Agrees that Special Taxes Enacted by Initiative Do Not Require Two-Thirds Supermajority Vote.jdsupra.com
- SCar wash up for reconsiderationsimivalleyacorn.com
Risky Propositioneastbayexpress.com
SF’s only marijuana-focused print publication launchesSF Examiner
Required Readinghyperallergic.com