Search for: "IMPROVED PARCEL OF LAND, ETC. v. State"
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Apr 2024, 11:04 pm
The Supreme Court decision is Sheetz v. [read post]
10 Oct 2023, 7:42 am
The case is Sheetz v. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 8:07 pm
(Ilya Somin) In a recent post on Kaur v. [read post]
1 Oct 2021, 4:00 pm
If, for example, land was owned by an individual, the full parcel receives the stepped-up basis. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 10:45 pm
V. [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 8:55 am
EXEMPTIONS Golden Gate Land Holding, LLC v. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 10:03 am
Supreme Court in Decker v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:13 pm
Jeffries Homes Housing Project, 306 Mich 638, 647-48; 11 NW2d 272 (1943); Grand Rapids Bd of Ed v Baczewski, 340 Mich 265, 270-71; 65 NW2d 810 (1954); Dep’t of Conservation v Connor, 316 Mich 565, 576-78; 25 NW2d 619 (1947). 9 See Chicago, Detroit, etc v Jacobs, 225 Mich 677; 196 NW 621 (1924); Michigan Air Line Ry v Barnes, 44 Mich 222; 6 NW 651 (1880); Toledo, etc R Co v Dunlap, 47 Mich 456; 11 NW 271 (1882); Detroit,… [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 2:06 am
The majority of land located under water in Florida, i.e., submerged land, belongs to the State of Florida and are held in trust and managed by the State’s Internal Improvement Trust Fund, which is essentially made up of the members of the Florida Cabinet. [read post]
23 Feb 2019, 12:35 pm
Furthermore, subsequent zoning actions may be relevant to both land value and damages, or special benefits. [read post]
14 Jan 2024, 8:10 am
State v. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 8:08 am
” As support, it then stated, “In Fox Film Corp. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 8:08 am
Both the money and the land in such a transaction are consideration; neither is more important to the public, although at the time of the transaction the money is more important to the seller and the land is more important to the buyer. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 10:06 pm
The Court also held that the California Supreme Court in Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
Petitioners challenged the CEQA exemption determination by Caltrans for an Interstate 5/State Route 56 interchange project in San Diego County as part of its North Coastal Corridor (“NCC”) project to improve vehicle and railroad transportation in the 27-mile La Jolla-Oceanside Corridor. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 3:00 am
Petitioners challenged the CEQA exemption determination by Caltrans for an Interstate 5/State Route 56 interchange project in San Diego County as part of its North Coastal Corridor (“NCC”) project to improve vehicle and railroad transportation in the 27-mile La Jolla-Oceanside Corridor. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 3:00 am
Petitioners challenged the CEQA exemption determination by Caltrans for an Interstate 5/State Route 56 interchange project in San Diego County as part of its North Coastal Corridor (“NCC”) project to improve vehicle and railroad transportation in the 27-mile La Jolla-Oceanside Corridor. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 3:00 am
Petitioners challenged the CEQA exemption determination by Caltrans for an Interstate 5/State Route 56 interchange project in San Diego County as part of its North Coastal Corridor (“NCC”) project to improve vehicle and railroad transportation in the 27-mile La Jolla-Oceanside Corridor. [read post]
