Re/Max of New Jersey, Inc. v. Wasau Ins. Co.: New Jersey Re/Max Sales Associates Are Considered Employees for Purposes of Workers' Compensation
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently considered whether Re/Max sales associates are classified as independent contractors or employees under the state’s workers’ compensation laws.
Workers' compensation laws vary by state. In general, employees carry workers' compensation insurance or self-insure for this type of liability. Employers must provide coverage for employees. Whether an independent contractor must be covered under workers' compensation laws is determined by state statute and interpretive judicial decisions (case law.)
American Society of Association Executives v. United States: Federal Court Upholds Tax on Lobbying Activities of Tax-Exempt Organization
A federal appeals court considered whether a tax on the lobbying activities of a tax-exempt 501 (c)(6)organization unconstitutionally interfered with the free-speech rights of such organizations.
Hyatt Corp. v. Women’s Int’l Bowling Congress: Women Bowlers Roll Strike against Hotel Giant in Dispute over Convention Reservations
In 1999 a federal district court in New York considered whether a large association was liable for unused hotel rooms that the hotel blocked off for its annual convention.
In 1993, the Women’s International Bowling Congress (“Association”) chose Buffalo, New York as the city for its 1996 Annual Meeting and Championship Tournament (“Convention”). The Association chose the Hyatt Regency Buffalo (“Hotel”) as the Association’s headquarters for the three-week Convention.
The Supreme Court of the United States recently considered whether Missouri’s limits on campaign contributions violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment free speech guarantees found in the Constitution of the United States.
In 1997, Missouri voters approved a ballot initiative that established limits on campaign contributions. The limits ranged from $250 to $1,000, depending on the demographics of the candidate’s constituency. The limits were indexed for inflation. At the time this lawsuit was filed, the limits were $275/$1,075.
The Supreme Court of Utah recently considered whether the failure to understand a contract written in English is an appropriate basis for voiding a real estate sales contract.
Brown v. Dermer: In Maryland, Landlord Can Be Liable for Lead-Based Paint Hazard Without Knowledge of Its Existence
In a 2000 case, the Court of Appeals of Maryland considered when a Baltimore landlord could be liable for injuries suffered by his tenants because of exposure to lead-based paint.
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, recently considered what type of payment constitutes an unlawful split of a real estate commission.
Conley v. Emerald Isle Realty, Inc.: North Carolina Bars Recovery From Property Owner and Rental Firm for Vacation Home Renters’ Injuries
The Supreme Court of North Carolina adddressed whether a property owner and rental firm can be liable for personal injuries suffered by renters on their vacation rental property.
Oliver v. AT&T Wireless Serv.: 130-Foot Cellular Phone Tower on Neighboring Property Does Not Constitute Inverse Condemnation or Nuisance
A California court recently considered whether a couple could recover damages from their neighbors and cellular phone companies for a 130-foot cellular phone tower adjoining their property.
Melvin and Brigitte Oliver (“Owners”) have lived on a 20-acre plot for over twenty-six years in the County of Butte (“County”), California. In 1990, their neighbor (“Neighbor”) leased property to various cellular telephone companies. Shortly thereafter, a 110-foot cellular phone tower was constructed on the Neighbor’s property.
A 1999 decision by the Court of Appeals of Indiana interpreting that state’s fair housing laws illustrates that state fair housing laws may differ from the federal Fair Housing Act. (See Note below).
In late 1996, James Cain, Sr., and Martha Cain (“Renters”) applied to rent mobile home space. They had four children. The owners of the plot, County Line Park, Inc. (“Owners”), denied their application because of a park policy prohibiting renting to families with more than two children.