Legal Case Summaries
California appellate court rules listing broker was not liable for injuries suffered by a potential purchaser when he fell into an empty pool on the property and the broker did not have a duty to warn him that standing over an empty pool on a diving board posed a risk of injury because the danger was open and obvious.
California federal court rules that salesperson and broker infringed another firm’s copyright by using photographs of property in the MLS that the other firm had copyrighted when it had previously listed the property for sale.
Tennessee appellate court reverses lower court’s determination that a real estate professional had acted as an undisclosed dual agent.
Arizona federal court rules that an association offered reasonable accommodations to a deaf individual and did not discriminate against him when it refused to honor his demand for a sign language interpreter at an association education session.
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.
Washington court reinstates deceptive trade practice allegations against real estate professionals for failing to provide the exact disclosures required by a county ordinance regarding airplane noise.
New York jury awards $4.75 million in damages and punitive damages in a case where a firm hired a manager of another brokerage and allegedly encouraged the manager to secretly recruit salespeople as well as steal listings and other information from the brokerage before she left to work at the new firm.
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.
After a trial, a Florida federal court finds that grocery store chain’s website violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act because a disabled individual was unable to download coupons, order prescriptions, and find store locations on the website.