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
Despite salesperson’s failure to comply with brokerage’s contractual requirements upon his departure from brokerage, Ohio court holds that broker’s failure to release salesperson’s listings to salesperson’s new broker was breach of independent contractor agreement.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upholds NAR’s opposition against a member’s trademark application for REALT OR REALTY based on NAR’s trademark rights in the REALTOR® trademarks.
Michigan court holds that real estate broker’s refusal to release lien on commercial property after funds sufficient to cover commission were deposited in escrow was a violation of state’s Commercial Real Estate Broker’s Lien Act.
In an important decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit allowed a business to challenge a U.S. Army Corps’ assertion of Clean Water Act jurisdiction without the business have to make a costly application for a permit.
Administrative law panel determines that member registered domain containing the term “REALTORS” in bad faith.
Texas court holds that purchaser’s reliance on inaccuracies and omissions in draft appraisal provided to lender was unjustifiable, and could not support allegations of fraud regarding misrepresentation of building’s value.
Supreme Court of the United States affirms lower court rulings that found a dental licensing board violated federal antitrust laws and was not immune from antitrust scrutiny because the board was not sufficiently supervised by the state. The decision has potential ramifications for state real estate commissions.
Nebraska federal court upholds Nebraska's attempt to enjoin a California broker from listing Nebraska properties without a Nebraska license and rules that the state’s regulations did not violate the First Amendment, as the broker was offering brokerage services and not simply advertising the properties.
California court holds that broker had no duty to discover or disclose to homebuyer that local regulatory requirements could preclude building home on purchased lot.
District of Columbia federal court determines that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development did not have the authority from the Fair Housing Act to create its disparate impact rule and so vacated the rule.