Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Court of Appeals Addresses Pretext By Municipalities As A Bar to Land Use Approvals?
Recently, there have been several instances in which municipalities have been challenged by property owners claiming that the municipal boards have utilized delaying tactics and other actions as a pretext to prevent development of their properties.
In its March 2024 decision in the case of Brinkmann v. Town of Southold, 96 F4th 209 (2d Cir. 2024), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals addressed claims of unlawful taking by eminent domain. In that case, the Plaintiff sought to develop a "big box" hardware store. There was public objection to the proposed development, citing concerns with, among other things, traffic generated by the proposed development. The Town therefore required different studies by the applicant to address the objections to the project raised by members of the public. After the studies were completed as required, the Town unsuccessfully attempted to purchase the property while the application was pending. Next, the Town implemented a moratorium on permits in an area of the Town that included the subject property and then extended the moratorium twice. Finally, the Town of Southold used its condemnation powers to acquire the property at issue for municipal use as a passive park.
The plaintiff brought a section 1983 challenge alleging a pretextual taking in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The district court dismissed the action. On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the:
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.