Previous   1    2    3    4    5    6    Next  

Client Updates

Employer’s Not Liable for COVID-19 Spread to Employee Households
On July 6, 2023, the California Supreme Court held in Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks that when an employee contracts COVID-19 at work and then transmits the virus to their spouse, the non-employee spouse’s claim against the employer is not barred by the state’s...
Court Holds that City Cannot Contract Away its Police Powers
On June 22, 2023, in Discovery Builders, Inc. v. City of Oakland, the California First District Court of Appeal held that the City of Oakland has the power to impose newly enacted impact fees on a developer despite a prior 2005 agreement between the city and the developer that outlined the...
Developments in Mitigation Fee Act
In-lieu fees that are used to mitigate development impacts are subject to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000 et seq.) (“MFA”).  Agencies that fail to make timely five-year findings for these fees are required to refund unspent fees.  This is...
Client Alert- AB 400 / Design Build Contracting
AB 400 (Rubio) would extend the sunset provisions for the use of design-build contracting by local government agencies from January 1, 2025 until January 1, 2031. The California Public Contract Code currently authorizes cities, counties, and specified special districts and...
Client Alert- Supreme Court Establishes Test for Wetlands and Waters
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent (5/25/23) decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (598 U.S. ___ (2023)) attempts to clarify the issue of when wetlands are considered  “waters of the United States” for purposes of the Clean Water Act...
Previous   1    2    3    4    5    6    Next