Bleier v. Board of Trustees of Village of East Hampton
About This Legal Opinion
This is a standing case where the court denied neighbor standing to enforce a conservation easement.
Membership Required
This resource is a Land Trust Alliance member benefit for the staff, board and volunteers of land trust and affiliate member organizations, and Alliance donors at the Protector level.
Knowles v. Codex Corp
This is a standing case where the court denied neighbor standing to enforce a conservation easement.
Burgess v. Breakell
A neighbor lacks standing to enforce a conservation easement under the Connecticut conservation easement enabling statute.
Carrillo v. Center for Natural Lands Management
This is another case of standing denied to a neighbor attempting to use the CE to obtain damages for a landslide.
Huber v. Dept. of Transportation
This case is another instance in which third-party standing to challenge or enforce a conservation easement has been denied.
Wolf Creek Ski Corporation v. Board of County Commissioners
The court did not rely on standing jurisprudence per se, but it effectively ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce the easement.
In the Matter of Girard v. Town of East Hampton
The appellate court affirmed in a very brief opinion, holding that the Town's zoning requirement of a conservation easement was arbitrary and capricious.
Sample for Practice 3C: Policies and Obligations of the Board of Trustees
This is a policies and obligations sample for a Board of Trustees from the accredited Tinicum Conservancy.
S. Schwartz v. Chester County Agricultural Land Preservation
Schwartz is the latest of many cases in which neighbors (or members of the general public) are denied standing to enforce a conservation easement.
Granara v. Stetson Kindred of America, Inc., and the Trustees of Reservations
The court held for the Trustees on all counts, finding that only named holders of the easement have any right to enforce it.
Campbell v. Village of Deforest
The appellate court affirmed, holding there was no taking as the Village was acting within its rights as the easement holder. As the easement traversed a steep slope abutting the river, the appellate court concluded that the Village reasonably interpreted the easement to allow a boardwalk.