Search for: "United States v. All That Tract & Parcel of Land"
Results 1 - 20
of 29
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jun 2017, 9:11 am
On March 22, 2017, we blogged about the importance of the United States Supreme Court’s looming decision in Murr v. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 3:15 pm
Last week, the United States Supreme Court in Murr v. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 2:31 pm
Adams v. [read post]
12 Jan 2014, 9:06 pm
United States, Steven L. [read post]
5 Sep 2017, 1:05 am
In Murr v. [read post]
5 Sep 2017, 1:05 am
In Murr v. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 2:19 pm
United States of America v. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 2:19 pm
United States of America v. [read post]
26 May 2023, 6:15 am
While the latest version also does not apply to “lawfully present” immigrants, a prior draft only excepted valid visa holders, which would have barred most refugees, asylees, and asylum seekers, all of whom are authorized to live and work in the United States, from renting business space. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 10:51 am
” Roberts argues – correctly, in my view – that it would be better to adopt a presumption in favor of treating each parcel separately: State laws define the boundaries of distinct units of land, and those boundaries should, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, determine the parcel at issue. [read post]
5 May 2014, 3:14 pm
DOT and TIIFT asserted that the rightof- way reservation applied to all tracts of land and was not limited by the beginning qualifying language. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 10:32 am
Lands Commission v. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 3:07 pm
The MDP prepared for the Business Park stated its intention of being the primary land use document that establishes the course of development for a flexible planned mixed use project. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:45 pm
In United States v. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 6:31 pm
The parties in Murr v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:37 pm
Introduction In going all the way to the United States Supreme Court, Kelo v. [read post]
17 Feb 2009, 12:44 pm
United States, No 04-41196 (5th Cir., Oct. 11, 2006). [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 12:57 pm
No dice, held the court of appeals, in Lucas, "the United States Supreme Court held that in a takings case, where the property owner challenges a regulation as denying all economically beneficial or productive use of land, the regulatory action is 'compensable without a case-specific inquiry into the public interest advanced in support of the restraint.'" Slip op. at 9 (quoting Lucas v. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 1:39 pm
” United States v. 2.33 Acres of Land, 704 F.2d 728, 730 (4th Cir. 1983). [read post]
11 Jul 2016, 9:30 pm
In United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
