Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Property Law & Real Estate : From 10/01/05 To 07/01/06
Number of summaries found: 4
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Commercial Law, Construction, Criminal Law & Procedure, Environmental Law, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate |
| Title: | Rapanos v. US |
| Date: | 06/19/06 |
| Case Number: | 04–1034 |
| Summary: | In cases involving certain state wetlands lying near ditches or man-made drains that eventually empty into traditional navigable waters, judgments against petitioners-landowners are vacated and remanded for further proceedings as to whether the specific wetlands at issue possessed a significant nexus with navigable waters for purposes of regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA). |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate, Tax Law |
| Title: | Jones v. Flowers |
| Date: | 04/26/06 |
| Case Number: | 04–1477 |
| Summary: | For purposes of due process, when mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, a state must take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his/her property, if it is practicable to do so. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate |
| Title: | Alaska v. US |
| Date: | 01/23/06 |
| Case Number: | 128 |
| Summary: | A proposed decree prepared by the parties is approved regarding a bill of complaint to quiet title relating to certain marine submerged lands in Southeast Alaska. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Contracts, Injury And Tort Law, Property Law & Real Estate |
| Title: | Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche |
| Date: | 11/29/05 |
| Case Number: | 04–712 |
| Summary: | Defendants may remove an action on the basis of diversity of citizenship if there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants, and no defendant is a citizen of the forum State; defendants need not negate the existence of a potential defendant whose presence in the action would destroy diversity. |