Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Case Notes
Moratorium Invalidated Where Consideration of Zoning Changes Not Planned
A New York court has invalidated a Long Island town's moratorium on certain types of development, having found that the town showed no intention of considering the type of development in the near future and had put in place the moratorium simply as a response to neighborhood opposition to this particular development. O'Reilly v. Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre, NYLJ 10/27/17, p. 21, col. 2 Supreme Ct., Nassau Cty. (Galasso, J.).
The developers sought to create four new building lots, two of which had at least 80 feet of frontage on a public street and the other two of which would have at least 80 feet of frontage on a proposed new private road. The town required at least 80 feet of road frontage for such lots. Two weeks after the developers submitted their site plan for the four lots, the town enacted a moratorium on development of property that does not have at least 80 feet of frontage on a public road. The developers offered to dedicate the proposed new private road to the town, but the town did not respond to that offer. A month after the site plan was submitted, the village building superintendent denied the developers' request for planning board review, citing as the reason the two lots that did not front onto a public road.
The developers responded by seeking declaratory judgment invalidating the village's moratorium. They argued that the moratorium was an invalid measure meant only to stop their proposed development. The court agreed, even though it observed that a moratorium imposed in response to a single development is often a valid means to allow the town time to consider the effects of development. In this case, however, the moratorium was apparently imposed merely to acquiesce to the community's opposition to the development application, and there was no indication that the town planned to consider any comprehensive zoning changes. Thus, the court granted the developers' request for injunctive and declaratory relief and remanded the site plan application to the village trustees for consideration of the developers' offer to dedicate the proposed street as a public one.
In Texas, LLCs Cannot Be Made to Pay Attorney Fees
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, has reversed an award of attorney fees to a commercial tenant that successfully sued for breach of contract, because the State of Texas' attorney fee statute permits fee awards against persons and corporations but not against limited liability companies (LLCs). First Cash, Ltd. v. JQ-Parkdale, LLC, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 303 (Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi – Edinburg 1/11/18).
When the defendant landlords in this action wanted to develop their property in a more profitable manner, they breached a lease affording plaintiff First Cash, Ltd., tenancy in a commercial building.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?