Pinal Cty. v. United States
About This Legal Opinion
The trial court held that landowner did not terminate the Highway Easement so the highway easement passed to the County with the taking and even if not in effect, the conservation easement did not prohibit the right to use the road and river crossing.
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.
Kiernat et al. v. County of Chisago
The court held that the conservation easement did not grant the landowner any new rights and did not preempt the County ordinance.
Idaho Rivers United v. Hudson
In a road use dispute case, the trial court issued a declaratory judgment that the State's use of the road was not allowed by the Forest Service except by a special use permit. The decision did not turn on the 1977 scenic easement, although that might affect the ultimate resolution of the case.
Turner v. Commissioner
The Tax Court held that the easement did not meet the open space conservation purpose test because it did not preserve any land in its natural state and failed the historic preservation test because it did not protect the property's contribution to the historical nature of the neighborhood.
In re Living Word Bible Camp
The court held that the conservation easement did not prohibit commercial uses of the trails. The court further held that the camp's use of the trails would not be considered commercial under the county's zoning ordinance.
Spiegel v. Rickey
The court held that the conveyance of the conservation easement and the proposed donation of the fee interest did not trigger the right of first refusal, as these were not 'sales.'
United States v. Schoenborn
The Eighth Circuit held that estoppel did not apply because landowner had not reasonably relied on the alleged statements in light of the subsequent letter and map and that the easement was a valid contract even though the map was not attached until later.
Racine v. United States
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the scenic easement did not prohibit a dude ranch and related structures.
61 York Acquisition, LLC v. Commissioner
The Tax Court held that the easement did not protect the entire exterior of the property, as required by the plain meaning of sec 170(h)(4)(B)(1), because the taxpayer only had ownership rights in the exterior facing the street and could not contribute a right that it did not possess.
City of Dallas, Texas v. Hall
The District Court, in its opinion of October 24, 2007, held that the State lacked standing under the Texas Conservation Easement Act to challenge the conservation easement, as it did not have an interest in the easement or in the property encumbered by the easement.
AJC Associates L.L.P. v. Town of Perinton
The court found that conservation easement did not preclude the access easement because both were executed as part of the same transaction and recorded simultaneously. The intent of the parties was not to prohibit the access easement.