Search for: "United States v. One Parcel of Property"
Results 1 - 20
of 343
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]
31 Jan 2013, 9:10 am
United States, the Federal Circuit addressed this question head on, concluding, to the surprise of no one, that the answer will largely depend upon the unique facts in each case. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 9:00 am
United States, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 U.S. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 1:43 pm
In Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, that court stated “local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for area variances and the judicial function in reviewing such decisions is a limited one. [read post]
25 Jun 2017, 8:21 pm
Murr v. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 10:51 am
But they rejected the state of Wisconsin’s position that the courts should simply treat contiguous parcels as one anytime state law indicates they should be. [read post]
2 Jun 2007, 2:05 am
The case involved a parcel of real property with two buildings. [read post]
22 Jun 2016, 8:00 am
In Murr, a Wisconsin court ruled that the relevant parcel includes not only the one actually impacted by the regulation, but contiguous property the owned by the same landowner. [read post]
11 Aug 2019, 10:20 pm
When the Greens still owned the property, one of the Green brothers built a tool shed: a small, one-story structure with no chimney or heating unit. [read post]
29 Jun 2016, 6:00 am
The Fourth District suggested at some length that the “no set of circumstances test” was vague, difficult to apply, and that it wasn’t entirely clear that even the United States Supreme Court truly adhered to it anymore, citing Washington State Grange v. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 11:54 pm
The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow in the case Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 12:58 pm
In United States of America v. 1.41 Acres, No. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 12:31 am
There are also in the estate three other parcels of real estate which are now co-owned by the three brothers, which I will refer to as Wentworth Avenue, a property containing two units, a Yeo Street property containing eight units and a Mosman property containing two units. [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 10:27 am
The Landmark Towers Assn., Inc. v. [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 10:27 am
The Landmark Towers Assn., Inc. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2017, 1:05 am
In Murr v. [read post]
5 Sep 2017, 1:05 am
In Murr v. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 7:39 am
It created a Planned Unit Development consisting of two parcels. [read post]
3 Nov 2015, 4:07 pm
Section 66424 of the Act stated that property “shall be considered as contiguous units, even if it is separated by roads, streets, utility easement, or railroad rights-of-way. [read post]
