People v. Colorado Springs BOR: Colorado Supreme Court Determines Membership-Based MLS Access Unlawfully Restricts Trade
In People v. Colorado Springs Board of REALTORS®, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed the reasonableness of Board membership criteria as it related to MLS access. The court held that membership criteria which gave a Board the means to restrict access to the MLS were potentially anti-competitive and constituted an impermissible group boycott under Rule of Reason analysis.
Rock Island Coutny BOR v. Cuchra: Illinois Court of Appeal Upholds Board's Suspension of Member for Violating Code of Ethics
In 1988 the Appellate Court of Illinois addressed the 90-day suspension of a Board member for Code of Ethics violations. The court held that the defendant had proper notice of the alleged ethics violations and that the Board's Code of Ethics was not vague.
Howerin Residential Sales v. Century Realty of Tidewater: Virginia Supreme Court Establishes Standard of Review of Arbitration Award
In Howerin Residential Sales Corp. v. Century Realty of Tidewater, Inc., the Supreme Court of Virginia addressed the validity of a REALTOR® board (the "Board") arbitration award. After noting the limited grounds upon which an arbitration award may be vacated, the state supreme court reversed the trial court's decision to vacate the award.
In Carter v. Bennett, the D.C. Circuit court held that the employer, a division of the federal government, did not assign a blind employee to a position in which reasonable accommodation was impossible, and that the employer reasonably accommodated the employee.
Garb-Ko v. Lansing-Lewis Services: Michigan Appellate Court Holds Recission Appropriate Remedy for Contract Dispute Arising Out of Undisclosed Presence of Underground Storage Tanks
The plaintiff was a buyer under a sales contract executed with the defendant with respect to property on which leaking underground storage tanks were discovered after execution of the sales contract. Plaintiff sought specific performance of the contract to require defendant to close the sale and convey the property to it. The Court of Appeals of Michigan held that the unknown was a natural mistake of fact allowing rescission of the contract in this case.
O'Riordan v. Long Island BOR: New York Federal Court Finds That Membership-Based MLS Access Is Not in Violation of Antitrust Laws
In O'Riordan v. Long Island Board of REALTORS®, the district court addressed tying arrangements and group boycotts in the context of requiring Board membership to participate in a MLS. The court held that under Rule of Reason analysis, the Board practices did not constitute a group boycott or tying agreement in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
US v. Starrett City Associates: New York City Apartment Complex Found Liable for Violating Fair Housing Act by Discriminating Against Minorites
In U.S. v. Starrett City Associates, the United States Attorney General (hereinafter Government) filed suit against Starrett City, which owned and operated an apartment housing complex in New York City. At issue was whether Starrett City's rental policies violated Title VIII, Sections 3601-3631 of the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
Wells v. Greater Lowell BOR: First Circuit Holds Membership-Based Access to MLS Does Not Constitute per se Tying Arrangement
In Wells v. Greater Lowell Board of REALTORS®, the First Circuit addressed tying arrangements in the context of Board membership as a condition of MLS participation. The court held that limiting access to the MLS to members of the real estate board operating the MLS was not a per se illegal tying arrangement.
Real Estate Informatin Network v. NAR®: Real Estate Information Network Settles Unfair Trade Practices Claim Against National Association of REALTORS®
Real Estate Information Network v. NAR®, involved an unfair trade practice claim by the Real Estate Information Network, Inc. a/k/a REIN against the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (NAR) as operator of the Real Estate Information Network a/k/a REINET. The parties settled the case for $2,500.
School Board of Nassau County v. Arline: Pre ADA Case Holds Person With Contagious Disease Could Be Handicapped
In School Board of Nassau County, Florida v. Arline, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Act). The Court held that a person suffering from a contagious disease, such as tuberculosis, could be handicapped within the meaning of the Act, and that the plaintiff was such a person. The Court remanded the case for a determination of whether the plaintiff was "otherwise qualified for her position."