Share
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.
Share
Maryland appellate court upholds real estate commission’s sanctions for licensee’s failure to disclose information about possible gas station leak into well water but reverses sanction for failure to disclose existence of HOA when in fact the entity was not an actual HOA.
Vermont’s highest court affirms trial court ruling that landlord did not have to accommodate tenant’s request for a support animal because the animal in question had exhibited aggressive behavior.
Pennsylvania court affirms verdict against real estate professional for drafting a deficient contingency clause that prevented the buyers from using the property as they had anticipated.
Florida appellate court finds that fact issues remained as to whether brokerage was vicariously liable for salesperson’s conduct and so remands case back to trial court.
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.