Search for: "United States v. One Parcel Property"
Results 41 - 60
of 340
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Mar 2017, 2:11 pm
In Murr v. [read post]
18 Feb 2012, 2:31 pm
(c) A person may claim a homestead exemption in either or both of the following: (i) one or more parcels of real property together with appurtenances and improvements; or (ii) a mobile home in which the claimant resides. [read post]
1 Dec 2016, 9:39 pm
Cook v. [read post]
2 Feb 2013, 2:19 pm
United States), and religion (Bishop Fred Pickerling, Danny Noonan). [read post]
2 Feb 2013, 2:19 pm
United States), and religion (Bishop Fred Pickerling, Danny Noonan). [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 8:53 am
, United States v. [read post]
1 Oct 2022, 3:21 pm
As Robin Kundis Craig suggests , even if a given parcel (such as the Sackett's property) is not part of the "waters of the United States," activities on that parcel that result in pollution reaching regulated waters could be sufficient to subject such activities to federal regulation. [read post]
5 May 2014, 3:14 pm
Prior Condo Liens Extinguished by Tax Deed A to Z Properties, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2009, 8:04 am
Feb. 18, 2009) (Christy Sports v. [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 1:08 pm
With that as an introduction, here is a brief description of the main challenges property owners can assert against condemning entities: Public Use: The Constitutions of Michigan and the United States allow government-authorized entities to condemn property for “public use. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 11:44 am
In Lingerman v. 6 Mill Road, LLC (Ct. [read post]
23 Feb 2019, 12:35 pm
Some courts answer one in the positive and the other in the negative. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 8:58 am
TITLE V–GEOSPATIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Sec. 501. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 9:36 am
First, the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution, and their counterparts in the Hawaii Constitution, do not recognize any distinction between "vested" existing accretion which is property, and "future" accretion, which is not. [read post]
21 Mar 2018, 4:31 pm
The tone of Hawkins’ argument was set three sentences into his presentation, when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg interrupted to ask pointedly: “Is it not the case that no other political entity would be immune from such a quiet-title suit, not the United States, not a state of the United States, not a foreign government? [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 11:22 am
State v. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 2:08 pm
The most recent such case, United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 3:45 pm
In 1975, Dade County restricted development on this property and others to one dwelling unit per five acres. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 6:31 pm
First, Wisconsin property law — specifically, the merger provision — treats the two parcels as one. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 10:20 am
Farms, LLC v. the United States, deals with whether a "physical taking of title" has occurred when a government agency's activities create a risk of flooding. [read post]
