Search for: "United States v. Certain Parcels of Land"
Results 121 - 140
of 149
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jul 2012, 11:47 am
In Dixon, the court held that a corporate "interest or expectancy" requires something more than the mere opportunity to develop a neighboring parcel of land. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 12:56 pm
United States v. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 3:34 pm
Rptr. 331 (1988) ("At issue on this appeal is whether, by virtue of the so-called California Tidelands Trust Doctrine, the State and its successor in interest, the City, can assert an easement for commerce, navigation and fishery over land which was part of a Mexican land grant and patented by the United States government pursuant to the Act of 1851. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 4:09 pm
Any party challenging the project must concurrently file all its other claims regarding land use approvals. [read post]
18 Sep 2011, 9:42 am
Kelo v. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 4:07 am
LewisCourt: Colorado Supreme Court Docket: 10SC275 September 12, 2011 Judge: Hobbs Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use In this case, the District Court for Jefferson County dismissed a condemnation petition for a private way of necessity because the developer of the allegedly landlocked parcel did not sufficiently define the scope of and necessity for the proposed condemnation. [read post]
5 Aug 2011, 10:10 pm
United States, No. 10-35175 (Aug. 1, 2011), in which a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that a property owner's inverse condemnation claim against the United States and the Bureau of Land Management was barred by sovereign immunity, and that similar claims against the State of Alaska could not be heard in federal court because of the 11th Amendment. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 2:18 pm
United States, 30 Fed. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 3:07 pm
Attachment and garnishment -- Cook v. [read post]
6 May 2011, 4:52 pm
Levine owned a parcel with an existing house and wanted to build two others and convert it to a planned unit development. [read post]
2 May 2011, 4:00 am
Together the corporations owned 18 residential apartment buildings (mostly walk-up tenements) and one undeveloped land parcel located mostly in Manhattan's Upper East Side. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 9:43 am
The City’s administrative approvals were subject to certain conditions, one of which related to the provision of affordable housing units. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 8:43 am
But his administration’s decision on this case, Connecticut v. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 1:45 am
Beutz v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 1:15 pm
In Gaito v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 3:17 pm
– Environmental Protection, February 26, 2010 United Parcel Service has agreed to pay a $53,931 civil penalty to U.S. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 10:57 am
Click Here United Parcel Service to Pay $53,931 Civil Penalty to Settle Alleged Violations of Waste Regulations at Lenexa, Kan. [read post]
1 Jan 2010, 2:12 pm
United States, 150 F. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 6:00 am
In Friends of Lagoon Valley v. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 12:27 pm
Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. includes owners of 5 of the 448 parcels affected by a renourishment project. [read post]
