Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Eminent domain has divided pipeline developers, landowners, environmentalists, and the government in a recent series of high profile cases involving natural gas pipeline projects. For example, the Third Circuit in In re PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC, 938 F.3d 96 (3d Cir. 2019), held that eminent domain cannot be used to acquire state lands. And the D.C. Circuit, animated by concern about the ability for pipeline developers to use eminent domain long before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the courts finally resolve challenges to FERC’s certificates approving such infrastructure projects, recently overturned 30 years of jurisdiction-related precedents in Allegheny Defense Project, et al. v. FERC, No. 17-1098, 2020 WL 3525547 (D.C. Cir. Jun. 30, 2020) (en banc). The U.S. Supreme Court has signaled its interest in eminent domain by inviting the Solicitor General to address whether certiorari should be granted in PennEast.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
The Guaranty Law Continues to Divide Opinion
By Matthew J. Schenker and Joshua Kopelowitz
This article discusses the recent developments surrounding the constitutionality of the Guaranty Law. In particular, we address the Southern District’s view that the statute is unconstitutional and the splintered view of the statute’s constitutionality expressed by New York State courts.
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
ZBA’s Abandonment of Its Prior Determination Invalid
Denial of Area Variance Upheld
Lease of Town Property Upheld; Property Not Subject to Public Trust
East Side Rezoning Upheld Against SEQRA Challenge
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Partial Constructive Eviction Defense Recognized
Condition Precedent to Sub-Sublease Not Satisfied
Guaranty Law Does Not Bar Liquidated Damages Claim
Penalty for Improper Conversion of Residential Building
Force Majeure Clause Reduces Pandemic-Era Rent
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Contract Language Does Not Bar Purchaser’s Recovery of Prejudgment Interest