Search for: "Two Right-of-Way Easements"
Results 341 - 360
of 399
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jul 2021, 4:04 am
There are two separate issues raised here, which Yost finesses just a wee bit to his convenience. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 7:20 am
., permanent plugging of wells, removal of platforms, facilities, and obstructions, and environmental remediation) are not borne by the federal government – requires an OCS lessee and/or grant holder provide supplemental financial assurance beyond base level amounts if BOEM determines such lessee or grantee poses a substantial risk of becoming financially incapable of fulfilling its accrued decommissioning obligations under its respective lease, right-of-way… [read post]
2 Apr 2007, 5:54 am
Effects on establishment of TM rights: Propertization need have no effect - distinctiveness plus use/intent to use are the two pillars of establishing rights. [read post]
11 Nov 2022, 7:01 am
However, two factors have complicated the matter of who legally owns the Darger estate. [read post]
11 Nov 2022, 7:01 am
However, two factors have complicated the matter of who legally owns the Darger estate. [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 1:27 pm
But in the end, the most interesting aspect of the case is the way in which law is understood as open textured enough to permit private governance through contract. [read post]
29 Jan 2021, 12:39 pm
(In dissent, Judge Moore, who wrote the initial panel opinion, suggests they got things right the first time.) [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 7:22 am
[Tony Reese has eloquently explained why you shouldn’t be able to combine derivative work + public performance right in this way, though unfixed public performances can be infringements of an original work.] [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 7:46 pm
Those two decisions are now understood to have imposed two restraints on exactions: a nexus limitation, and a proportionality test. [read post]
21 Aug 2018, 10:19 am
These filings are in the California beachfront-easement case Martins Beach 1 v. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 11:37 am
The Court found that “even if these facts could be considered evidence of malice,” the trial court judge had found that the plaintiff had a good faith belief in the right of first refusal, the claim had survived summary judgment, and a jury (although ruling against them on the question of whether they had an easement) found that they had a good reason to believe the cut down tree was on their own property (nothing about the cameras or dirt pile, though). [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 11:37 am
The Court found that “even if these facts could be considered evidence of malice,” the trial court judge had found that the plaintiff had a good faith belief in the right of first refusal, the claim had survived summary judgment, and a jury (although ruling against them on the question of whether they had an easement) found that they had a good reason to believe the cut down tree was on their own property (nothing about the cameras or dirt pile, though). [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 4:30 am
So I just write in the way that didn’t require a lot of that. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 3:24 pm
For example, it shall not grant any vested rights prior to compliance with CEQA. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 1:38 pm
Johns River Management District In 2013, the Supreme Court enhanced property rights in the United States when it decided Koontz. [read post]
11 Feb 2012, 9:51 am
Orthodox way to look at the contract: defendant accepted P’s offer to sell. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 11:22 am
Or patronize two of ATL’s advertisers, BarMax and/or Themis Bar Review.That’s all; all the information is there. [read post]
22 Nov 2020, 4:01 am
Is a violation of their right to equality under s. 15(1). [read post]
30 Sep 2020, 11:01 am
The Court reiterated that public easement cases were frequent, and the publication of this case was intended to provide clear instruction on the easement rights of public agencies and private licensures. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 11:37 am
The Court found that “even if these facts could be considered evidence of malice,” the trial court judge had found that the plaintiff had a good faith belief in the right of first refusal, the claim had survived summary judgment, and a jury (although ruling against them on the question of whether they had an easement) found that they had a good reason to believe the cut down tree was on their own property (nothing about the cameras or dirt pile, though). [read post]
