Supreme Court Case Paper

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

First, rezoning action is quasi-judicial in nature, subject to strict scrutiny on certiorari review. Second, a landowner who demonstrates that proposed use of the property is consistent with comprehensive plan is not presumptively entitled to such use. Third, a landowner seeking to rezone a property has burden of proving that proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and consequently burden shifts to the zoning board to demonstrate legitimate public purpose of maintaining existing zoning classification. Finally, the board is not

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

Board of Appeals of Worcester, 340 Mass.748, 753. Accordingly, the court ultimately reversed the decree granting the zoning variance tothe gas station.In order for Client to be granted a permit variance to build a gas station in a commercial officespace zone, he must meet each of the 40A, § 10 statutory requirements. Grenon v.Commonwealth, (2004) Mass. Super. LEXIS 176.In Shacka v. Board of Appeals, the Massachusetts Supreme Court reversed a zoning variancegranted to a gas station owner when it determined there were no facts to support a hardshipexisted. The court stated “if there is occasion to change the uses permitted on this and otherland in the area, because of the general effect of the shift to business, that is for the town toconsider by way of amendment.” Similarly under the client’s circumstances, a court would findan amendment more appropriate in addressing his concerns of an overage of commercial officespace and need for a gas station. (1961) 341 Mass. 593.Client has no hardship related to his request for a zoning variance and thus would not qualifyfor one. Simply because Client believes a gas station is needed in the area, and that officespace is too plentiful, in no way meets the zoning statutory requirements of 40A, § 10.In summary, Client has no legal basis to request a zoning variance in not meeting the 40A, §10 statutory

2. The inclusion by Mr. Jeves in the addendum of sentence re. inspection certificates follows from the condition precedent in the original k that Montane must be satisfied w/ the lease arrangement. Therefore, it does not seem that the purchasers showed “intent” different from what the original k stated.

• Contracts were exchanged on 2 May 2005 for the purchase of property for $2,130,000 between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.

The main legal issue to examine regarding this case deals with encroachment, which is simply defined as: A possessory right to the property of another that may be acquired by the passage of time. Crockett has well documented existence of the woodlot property dating back over 20 years and was not met with objection on the part of the Smith, who is the true owner. Due to the fact that the plantiff left the defendant undisturbed for over 20 years, he lost his right to dispute to object the encroachment. Smith would have had to make his objections known regarding Crockett’s occupancy in the log cabin, constructed on his wood lot, many years earlier if he wanted to maintain his right to object.

Also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, it was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the US Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The Majority decision was that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

In this case, Mr. Brandt had filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government for "the right-of-way crossing" his land had extinguished after the cessation of the railroad activity in the corridor. The Government had argued that this right was created by the Federal General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 and should be valid on the gounds that the railroad line was affirmed to be abandoned. While reviewing this case, it must be determined whether or not that the Government, under this Act, had retained an interest in the abandoned railroad right-of-way.

The key point of contention in this scenario is the quitclaim deed with which Julio Gazpacho attempted to convey ownership of the easement to his neighbors, Ruben and Regina Gomez, because contrary to popular public belief, quitclaim deeds have at best a tenuous legal status within the state of Texas. In this case, rather than utilize a proper warranty deed to legally transfer title of ownership to the easement, Mr. Gazpacho elected to use a quitclaim deed that Texan legal precedent has universally deemed to be invalid. According to the landmark decision made in Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, "a quitclaim deed conveys any title, interest, or claim of the grantor in the real property, but it does not profess that the title is valid nor does it contain any warranty or covenants of title. Thus, a quitclaim deed does not establish title in the person holding the deed, but merely passes whatever interest the grantor has in the property" Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, 23 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). The fact that the only claim to title on the easement held by Ruben and Regina Gomez is made through the fundamentally flawed legal device of the quitclaim deed is crucial to properly deciding this case.

With the permission of the seller, Broker A submits a listing to MLS inviting cooperating brokers to help find a buyer. This is an offer of:

Decisions of the Supreme Court can have a huge impact on the country. Through United States history, court decisions have influenced the nation and have totally changed how the government runs things. The United Sates is set up into three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. It is up to the judiciary branch that has the job to interpret the constitution, and often these interpretations change over certain amounts of times. Over the course of America 's history as a fully autocratic nation, the Supreme Court has made some monumental decisions. Three examples of significant cases that have affected the government are Marbury vs. Madison (1803), Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), and Mapp vs. Ohio (1961).

In the matter sub judice, the Circuit Count concluded that the Property was covered as EPC’s “newly acquired Property.” In so holding, the Circuit Court determined that: 1) the word “acquired” was ambiguous; 2) “acquired” in the context of this contract could plausibly mean either “ownership,” “possession,” or “control;” 3) EPC gained “control” of the Property by virtue of its acquisition of Cyprus Square; and 4) because EPC owned Cyprus Square for only (88) days before the loss, the Property owned by Cyprus Square over which EPC was the sole member was “newly acquired” by EPC.

Numerous pieces of evidence led me to my conclusion about the contract in question. The first item of business a judge would attend to when making a decision is to decide whether a contract is present between any of the parties, and who those parties are. The contract under examination is between buyers Jon and Marsha and the seller Boren Deal. The documents pertaining to this case include the REPC as well as Addendum No. 1 which states the seller’s terms, and Addendum No. 2, the

Upon the valid transfer and settlement regarding title to the reversionary interests to the land, all rights and obligations are assigned to LC. Covenants already entered into by the previous owner OT, will be deemed to have been made on behalf of the successors of the title. With case authority asserting that LC will be subject to all covenants that touch and concern the land, and that options to renew a lease are considered to be covenants relevant to land, it can be established here that LC is entitled to enforce rent payments, and is required to recognise the option to renew covenanted between OT and Tom.