Search for: "United States v. Parcels of Real Property"
Results 1 - 20
of 218
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Apr 2024, 3:14 pm
.), and only DIFs that were “imposed neither generally nor ministerially, but on an individual and discretionary basis” could invoke the Takings Clause embedded in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.[2] This limitation on developers’ ability to utilize the Takings Clause meant that courts would not apply the “Nollan/Dolan test” to DIFs generally applicable to a broad class of property owners pursuant to legislative… [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 1:39 pm
Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. [read post]
9 Jan 2024, 11:46 am
Senate Bill 240 SB 240 authorizes local agencies or nonprofit affordable housing developers to be considered priority buyers of surplus state real property. [read post]
26 Sep 2023, 4:56 am
United States, 946 F.2d 710, 713 (9th Cir. 1991). [read post]
24 Sep 2023, 9:01 pm
Geopolitical tensions and strategic competition between the United States and China have increasingly influenced the investment landscape in recent years, implicating established regulatory frameworks such as that of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”), as well as driving non-traditional government actors to take action. [read post]
12 Sep 2023, 3:10 pm
Project Background and Litigation History The Specific Plan covered 13 parcels comprising 797 acres, with a proposed development including up to 4,340 dwelling units with a maximum population increase of 15,928 new residents, as well as other uses including mixed use commercial, parks, open space, and schools. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 4:21 am
TJM also owned certain real property near downtown Dallas, Texas. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 10:22 am
United States (1875) – most eminent domain actions have focused on real estate matters. [read post]
22 Aug 2023, 9:00 pm
THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES THE IMPACT OF THAT REVISION as well as considerations for developers contemplating the purchase or development of real property that contains or is likely to contain regulated wetlands. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 7:30 am
It can be argued that someone who does not have the right to reside in the United States should not be allowed to buy property in the country. [read post]
26 May 2023, 6:15 am
In Congress and in statehouses throughout the United States, lawmakers continue to introduce legislation designed to bar citizens of foreign adversaries from being able to purchase real property. [read post]
24 May 2023, 4:00 am
Save the El Dorado Ditch v. [read post]
21 Feb 2023, 1:21 pm
IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. [read post]
1 Feb 2023, 8:44 am
” SB 118: UC Enrollment Changes Not A CEQA “Project” Senate Bill 118 was the State Legislature’s targeted response to Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. [read post]
19 Dec 2022, 11:07 am
Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands v. [read post]
6 Dec 2022, 4:00 am
A principal of zoning since the United State Supreme Court upheld an early zoning ordinance in 1926 (Village of Euclid v. [read post]
7 Nov 2022, 11:06 am
The example is lightly modified from the facts in United States v. [read post]
23 Aug 2022, 5:00 am
In 1974, the County adopted a rezoning measure that reduced how many residences Martha could build on its property. [read post]
7 Jun 2022, 5:00 pm
Deshaney v. [read post]
25 May 2022, 6:03 am
Near the end of 2019, Hildebrant, acting on behalf of his development group, the Morelia Group-DE, LLC, sought to purchase a parcel of real estate owned by Sycamore Township (the "Sycamore Township Property"). [read post]
