Search for: "Railroad Company v. Grant"
Results 81 - 100
of 428
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
Supreme Court Oral Argument in OBB Personenverkehr v. Sachs, a Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Case
6 Oct 2015, 8:11 am
Not so in this case, where all agree that running a railroad company and selling tickets are commercial activity. [read post]
5 Sep 2013, 6:00 am
The court explained that this does not mean that the case has to be a “bet the company” one, or even close. [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 1:18 pm
The problem, argue the affected property owners, is that the railroads have no unilateral right to permit this kind of activity, which falls outside the "railroad purposes" scope of the rights-of-way granted to them. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 6:35 am
BNSF Railway Co. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 2:04 pm
The Appeals Court explains that appellants BNSF Railway Company and Union Pacific Railroad Company (the Railroads) formerly maintained railroad tracks on a parcel of land in Stockton, California, that was contaminated by petroleum. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 7:28 am
The Court granted cert. in three cases, and will hear a fourth: Schwarzenegger v. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 9:27 am
Hlavinka v. [read post]
14 Oct 2022, 6:22 am
" In Erving v. [read post]
12 Oct 2007, 12:51 am
(5) The Minister of Construction and Transportation shall, upon receiving the application for authorizing the incorporation of any real estate investment company under paragraph (4), grant the authorization for incorporating such real estate investment company after confirming whether the terms that are laid down when the preliminary authorization is granted are implemented. [read post]
22 Sep 2021, 7:24 am
The Supreme Court has previously held in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 7:22 am
Kemper v. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 7:45 am
As stated in the conveyance, in consideration of the payment of $345.80, the original owners did "hereby ... grant and confirm to the [Railway Company], its successors and assigns for ever" an 8.67 acre portion of the owners' property. [read post]
5 Jan 2016, 4:20 am
In the recent case of Espinoza v. [read post]
25 Sep 2009, 8:26 am
Fresh Coat, Inc. v. [read post]
15 May 2018, 7:14 am
The landowners claimed title (ownership) based upon: 1) an 1882 deed, that they claim served to revert the corridor land to them when the corridor stopped being used as a railroad; and 2) all three claimed adverse possession of those sections of the corridor.The granting clause (“[t]he words that transfer an interest in a deed,”) of the 1882 deed granted the property to the railroad company “and to its assigns forever. [read post]
15 May 2018, 7:14 am
The landowners claimed title (ownership) based upon: 1) an 1882 deed, that they claim served to revert the corridor land to them when the corridor stopped being used as a railroad; and 2) all three claimed adverse possession of those sections of the corridor.The granting clause (“[t]he words that transfer an interest in a deed,”) of the 1882 deed granted the property to the railroad company “and to its assigns forever. [read post]
5 May 2016, 7:45 am
The controversy over the Second Bank of the United States, ostensibly settled in McCullough v. [read post]
25 Aug 2021, 12:08 pm
In Capriole v. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 11:53 am
Railroad company;b. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 6:29 am
The Court also granted certiorari in Martinez v. [read post]
