Powered by Google

Search form

Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov’t PAC: US Supreme Court Upholds Campaign Contribution Restrictions

February 1, 2000: 

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.

Semenov v. Hill: Purchaser’s Lack of English-Language Proficiency May Void Purchase Agreement

February 1, 2000: 

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

February 1, 2000: 

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.

Markeim-Chalmers, Inc. v. Masco Corp.: Commission Split with Nonlicensee Can Be Legal

February 1, 2000: 

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

January 1, 2000: 

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

January 1, 2000: 

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.

Indiana v. County Line Park: Indiana Court Allows Owner to Deny Rental Because of Children

January 1, 2000: 

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.

Sandhills Association of REALTORS® v. Village of Pinehurst: Federal Court Rules Sign Ordinance Unconstitutional

December 1, 1999: 

A federal court in North Carolina recently considered whether a town’s ordinance regulating the size, color, and content of real estate “for sale” signs was constitutional.

Beginning in 1994, the village of Pinehurst, North Carolina (“Village”) enacted a series of ordinances regulating the display of real estate For Sale signs. The Village is a resort community, with tourism as its primary industry. A portion of the Village is designated a National Historic Landmark.

Vogan v. Hayes Appraisal Associates, Inc.: Owner Is Third-Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Lender and Appraiser

November 1, 1999: 

The Supreme Court of Iowa recently decided whether a home owner can be a third-party beneficiary of a contract between an appraisal company and a lender.

Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc., v. Rommel Builder, Inc.: Developers and Builder Violated FHAA

November 1, 1999: 

The United States District Court for Maryland considered whether condominium complex’s owners and developers had violated both the ADA and FHAA.