Powered by Google

Search form












Legal Case Summaries

Search for a case by name or topic:

May 27, 2015
The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upholds NAR’s opposition against a member’s trademark application for REALT OR REALTY based on NAR’s trademark rights in the REALTOR® trademarks.
May 11, 2015
In an important decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit allowed a business to challenge a U.S. Army Corps’ assertion of Clean Water Act jurisdiction without the business have to make a costly application for a permit.
May 6, 2015
Michigan court holds that real estate broker’s refusal to release lien on commercial property after funds sufficient to cover commission were deposited in escrow was a violation of state’s Commercial Real Estate Broker’s Lien Act.
April 29, 2015
Administrative law panel determines that member registered domain containing the term “REALTORS” in bad faith.
March 25, 2015
Texas court holds that purchaser’s reliance on inaccuracies and omissions in draft appraisal provided to lender was unjustifiable, and could not support allegations of fraud regarding misrepresentation of building’s value.
March 16, 2015
Supreme Court of the United States affirms lower court rulings that found a dental licensing board violated federal antitrust laws and was not immune from antitrust scrutiny because the board was not sufficiently supervised by the state. The decision has potential ramifications for state real estate commissions.
February 25, 2015
Nebraska federal court upholds Nebraska's attempt to enjoin a California broker from listing Nebraska properties without a Nebraska license and rules that the state’s regulations did not violate the First Amendment, as the broker was offering brokerage services and not simply advertising the properties.
February 18, 2015
California court holds that broker had no duty to discover or disclose to homebuyer that local regulatory requirements could preclude building home on purchased lot.
February 4, 2015
District of Columbia federal court determines that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development did not have the authority from the Fair Housing Act to create its disparate impact rule and so vacated the rule.