W.O.R.C. Realty Corp. v. Town of Islip
About This Legal Opinion
The appellate court reversed the trial court on the collateral estoppel issue, finding that the earlier property tax action did not address the issue of the validity of the easement. However, the appellate court went on to rule for the town based on the statute of limitations defense.
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.
Albahary v. Bristol
The court held that the landowner denied compensation for the contaminated property on the basis of collateral estoppel because the plaintiff sold an easement to the City on the contaminated property.
Van Dyke v. Dunker & Aced
The trial court dismissed the action because it was outside of the two-year statute of limitations period. The appellate court affirmed, applying the 'discovery rule' that a malpractice cause of action accrues when the client discovers, or should discover, the facts essential to the claim.
Adirondack Mountain Reserve v. Board of Assessors of the Town
The court found that there is support in the record for the trial court's finding, affirmed by the Appellate Division (99 AD2d 600), that the easement did not diminish the highest and best use of petitioner's retained property so there was no property tax reduction.
Goldmuntz v. Town of Chilmark
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the construction of the swimming pool would be in violation of the conservation easement.
Town of Oyster Bay v. Doremus
The Appellate Court reversed, holding that there was no contract to convey the conservation easement, therefore the Town could not be a third party beneficiary.
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.
Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority v. City of Whittier
The trial court ordered specific performance of the prior approval requirement of the Park District and enjoined the oil drilling lease. The appellate court went beyond the trial court in finding that the entire Lease was permanently terminated.
Northampton Twp. v. Parsons
The appellate court reversed, finding that the pole barn was a violation of the DCCR and the Agreement of Sale. In particular, the appellate court held that the DCCR limited the use of Lot 1 to passive recreational uses. The appellate court ordered that the pole barn be removed.
Collings v. Planning Board of Stow
The appellate court reversed, holding that the requirement to offer the land to the conservation commission and a land trust was a violation of the statute, and that the waiver itself was not just compensation.
Ray v. Western Pennsylvania Conservancy
The trial court held for WPC, finding that the easement unambiguously prohibited the horizontal drilling, and that the purposes of the easement went beyond simply protecting the surface of the protected property. Affirmed.