Search for: "United States v. One Parcel of Real Property"
Results 121 - 140
of 176
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jan 2014, 2:11 pm
” The Court found this conclusion was “bolstered by the uncontroverted evidence that 26,000 cubic yards of soil will be excavated from [one of the project site parcels] before construction and that underground parking and the ground floor will separate residential units from any vapor-intrusion pathway. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 10:03 am
This case was not an action that fit within the provision of CCP §39 “[f]or the recovery of real property, or of an estate or interest therein, or for the determination in any form, of that right or interest, and for injuries to real property” or “[f]or the foreclosure of all liens and mortgages on real property. [read post]
13 Feb 2011, 9:59 am
Its theme is the notion that, at the dawn of the social media, bloggers and tweeters are closer to the epicenter of real, live IP action than one might expect. [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 4:20 pm
(Citing Concerned Dublin Citizens v. [read post]
27 Nov 2021, 6:26 am
The award of final decision-making authority was not “dramatically unlike” the relief requested, as decision making is part and parcel to legal custody. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 7:35 am
Perhaps a set of basic governance devices as models would serve a useful purpose as well.In any case, this has been a long time coming in the United States. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 11:00 am
” The project would include an 85-acre resort parcel, with up to 850 lodging units, 300,000 square feet of commercial space, and over 3,000 parking spaces, and an 8.8-acre parcel housing 300 resort employees, to be constructed over 25 years. [read post]
27 Nov 2018, 12:27 pm
High Sierra Rural Alliance v. [read post]
8 Sep 2016, 7:36 am
Without more details or some facts from the BIA or the other side of the transaction, one could conclude that Small is a real estate opportunist. [read post]
25 Oct 2007, 8:27 pm
[29] Given that the United States has a stronger position on the concept of property rights, it seems likely that similar cases will develop here. [read post]
27 Mar 2020, 6:32 pm
State Water Resources (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 342, 359; Bridges v. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 8:08 am
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, saying, “the mere fact that a copyright is property derived from a grant by the United States is insufficient to support the claim of exemption. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 8:08 am
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, saying, “the mere fact that a copyright is property derived from a grant by the United States is insufficient to support the claim of exemption.” To be exempt from state taxation, the government must reserve some sort of controlling interest in a grant or privilege. [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]
8 Apr 2013, 2:54 am
Since then, at least in the United States, the general partnership has been largely supplanted by other, statutorily enabled business forms providing limited liability, namely, corporations and, more recently, limited liability companies. [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]
10 Jan 2017, 8:56 am
(2) Does the ICCTA preempt a state agency’s voluntary commitments to comply with CEQA as a condition of receiving state funds for a state owned rail line and/or leasing state-owned property? [read post]
27 Feb 2007, 8:09 am
(For a post-United Foods version of this problem, see Eric Goldman's post on Langdon v. [read post]
31 Jul 2020, 3:00 am
Wilde 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]
