Powered by Google

Search form

Topics

|

Programs

|

Directories

|

Apps

|

Videos

|

Store

Legal Case Summaries

Search for a case by name or topic:

July 1, 2015
The Supreme Court ruled that a party may prove violations of the federal Fair Housing Act by either showing intentional discrimination or that the challenged practice had a disparate impact on protected classes.
June 24, 2015
Despite salesperson’s failure to comply with brokerage’s contractual requirements upon his departure from brokerage, Ohio court holds that broker’s failure to release salesperson’s listings to salesperson’s new broker was breach of independent contractor agreement.
June 9, 2015
Massachusetts’s highest court finds that license law allowed broker to properly classify salespeople as independent contractors.
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.

Pages