Case summaries are provided for educational purposes only, and are not a substitute for legal advice by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. Case law may change over time, so be sure to confirm a case is still good law.
In a case supported by NAR, Kansas’s highest court finds that town’s “transportation user fee” imposed a tax on property owners based on the use of their property and thus was an impermissible excise tax.
Vermont’s highest court rules that property owners could not claim that commercial solar panel array constituted a nuisance because the solar array did not interfere with the owners’ use of their property, even though the owners claimed that the aesthetics of the solar panels had damaged their property values.
California federal court rules that a company was not required to comply with website accessibility guidelines because the U.S. Department of Justice has failed to promulgate clear guidance on the accessibility requirements.
Utah appellate court affirms trial court’s commission award to the buyer’s representative from the seller because the seller’s failure to comply with the terms of the purchase contract caused the transaction to fail.
Minnesota court finds that real estate professionals did not have a fraudulent intent when they told the buyers that the property had 900 feet of lakeshore access because the real estate professionals had obtained this information from the county’s website.
Oklahoma court reinstates lawsuit alleging transaction broker failed to disclose adverse material facts that the brokerage had received during an earlier transaction involving the property.
Pennsylvania federal court dismisses lawsuit over a commission dispute for a commercial property arising from the broker’s alleged oral agreement to reduce his commission that was never reduced to a writing.
Photographer’s lawsuit against real estate professional over her use of the photographer’s copyrighted photograph on her website without permission is dismissed because the photographer did not demonstrate actual damages.
Ohio court rules that real estate professional had no duty to disclose the fact that a sex offender lived next door, as this was a nonmaterial defect that did not involve the buyer’s property.
California’s highest court has affirmed a lower court ruling that a listing broker for a brokerage acting as a dual agent owes a buyer an equivalent duty as the brokerage.