Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Special facts is a court-created equitable doctrine that allows a land use applicant to avoid the impact of a change of zone enacted while the application is pending, by showing significant governmental delay of the application together with proof that but for the delay, the landowner would have been able to vest in its use before the zoning was changed. In November 2013, the Court of Appeals decided Rocky Point Drive-In v. Town of Brookhaven (Rocky Point), a case that the plaintiff (represented by the author) hoped would not only allow it to prevail, but would also clarify the special facts doctrine.
The Court of Appeals decided that the plaintiff had no case, in a decision that highlights, but unfortunately does not clarify, New York's policy on when plaintiffs may take advantage of the special facts doctrine.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.