In Re Estate of Ryerss
About This Legal Opinion
The Appellate Court found that the Donated or Dedicated Property Act applied, that the City had failed to demonstrate that the continued use of the park met conversion tests, and found that the statute did not allow for consideration of any public benefit that might result from the conversion.
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.
Friends of Congress Square Park v. City of Portland
The NPS asked the court to remand the action to the NPS to allow it to reconsider its approval of the park conversion because it had failed to conduct an environmental assessment. All parties consented to the voluntary remand except the purchaser of the property.
Seventeen Seventy Sherman Street, LLC v. Commissioner
The Tax Court held that the LLC's deduction failed outright because it had failed to value all of the consideration received in the quid pro quo exchange and therefore failed to prove that the value of the easements exceeded the value of that consideration.
In re Erie Golf Course
The Supreme Court affirmed that the DDPA applied, found that the Orphans' Court had substantial discretion under DDPA to rule on the impracticality and public interest, and on remand, ordered deference to the Orphans' Court original finding that the City had not met these DDPA standards.
Friends of DeReef Park v. National Park Service
The NPS ask the court to remand the action to the NPS to allow it to reconsider its approval of the park conversion because it had failed to conduct an environmental assessment. All parties consented to the voluntary remand except the purchaser of the property.
Scarborough Citizens Protecting Resources v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The First Circuit held that the Wildlife Restoration Act regulations give the USFWS discretion in how to respond to an alleged conversion of property funded by the Act. The Court also found no NEPA violation because federal officials did not have a duty to review the State's grant of the easements.
McCarthy v. Town of Sudbury
In McCarthy II, the Land Court found that the neighboring landowners had standing based on both the ten taxpayer statute and the subdivision statute. and found that the easement was enforceable.
Nickolas v. City of Marlborough II
The trial court first held that the plaintiffs had standing under the public right doctrine to compel the performance of a duty required by law. Next, the court found that use of the park as a senior center was consistent with the original order of taking as a 'play ground or a recreation center.
In re Jackson
Township did not meet the state statutory standard of showing that continued use of property as a park was no longer physically or financially practicable.
City of Sidney v. Spring Creek Corp.
The appellate court found that the easement did not meet the definition under Ohio's enabling statute so was invalid. The statute required a purpose of 'retaining land predominantly in its natural, scenic, open or wooded condition.' The easement allowed the surface of the property to be levelled.
Don't Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Project did not constitute a changed use or purpose that required voter approval because the Project had a minor impact on the Park's footprint or aesthetic features, and also noted that the Project was consistent with park or recreation purposes