Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
247 results for '* industry:"Real Estate"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-10-18
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Brennan
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph Stanley, Schwartz & Schwartz, Dover, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Peter Schaeffer, Avenue Law, Dover, DE for defendant.
Case Number: K22C-01-009 DJB
Court denied a motion to dismiss filed by defendant real estate agent seeking to dismiss claims filed by plaintiff clients claiming defendant failed to inform them of defects in in the home prior to purchasing the property.
Publication Date: 2022-10-11
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: Hospitality and Lodging | Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Karsnitz
Attorneys: For plaintiff: William B. Larson, Tye C. Bell, Manning Gross + Massenberg LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
for defendant: Richard A. Forsten, Pamela J. Scott, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Frederick A. Townsend, III, Hudson, Jones, Jaywork & Fisher, LLC, Lewes, DE for appellees.
Case Number: S22A-02-003 CAK
Upward variance from floor area ratio affirmed where variance was needed for hotel developer's aesthetic vision for project, which sought not to increase density but rather to provide additional amenities and retail space.
Publication Date: 2022-10-04
Practice Area: Insurance Litigation
Industry: Insurance | Real Estate
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Karsnitz
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard E. Berl, Hudson, Jones, Jaywork & Fisher, LLC, Lewes, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Robert J. Valihura, Jr., Morton, Valihura & Zerbato, LLC, Greenville, DE; Bruce W. McCullough, Boddel Bove, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Eileen M. Ford, Ryan D. Kingshill, Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE, for defendants.
Case Number: S21C-08-006 CAK
Court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss claims in a multiple party action arising out of insurance policy disputes due to an insured's property damage.
Publication Date: 2022-09-20
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Montgomery-Reeves
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Sidney S. Liebesman, Beth B. Miller, Kasey H. DeSantis, Fox Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellants.
for defendant: Andrea S. Brooks, Wilks Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: 288, 2021
Distributions from statutory trust constituted the personal property of the holder of the beneficial interest and could therefore be subject to garnishment by the beneficiary's creditors.
Publication Date: 2022-09-06
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry: Energy | Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Judge: Judge Dorsey
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69947
Court found that a commission's actions by and through the state of California to take over the operation of an oil facility that plaintiff intended to abandon was a reasonable exercise of its police power and did not constitute a taking violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or the Constitution of California because without such intervention, the threat posed to the public's safety was great.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Janet K. Colaneri, Bret Weatherford
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-08-30
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Fiorvanti
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Richard P. Rollo, Travis S. Hunter, Angela Lam, Nicole M. Henry, John T. Miraglia, Richards, Layton, & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Alan S. Loewinsohn, Kerry Schonwald, Loewinsohn, Deary, Simony Ray LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.
Case Number: D69935
Court denied breach of contract claim in real estate development dissolution case holding that plaintiffs failed to establish that defendants breached material terms of the agreement, their actions were unreasonable, or but for defendants' actions, the plaintiffs would be in a different position.
Publication Date: 2022-08-30
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Entertainment and Leisure | Real Estate
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Krause
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69941
Court dismissed appellant's claim under the Helms-Burton Act arguing that he was the beneficiary of property seized during the Castro Regime.
Publication Date: 2022-08-30
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Retail | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Greenaway
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69937
Court affirmed district court's dismissal of claims under federal and state securities law finding that a failure to disclose the possibility that legal action could result as a part of an asset acquisition did not qualify as a material fact for the purposes of omission arguments.
Publication Date: 2022-08-16
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Richard P. Rollo, Travis S. Hunter, Angela Lam, Nicole M. Henry, John T. Miraglia, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Alan S. Loewinsohn, Kerry Schonwald, Loewinsohn Deary Simon Ray LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.
Case Number: D69920
Although both parties had breached their business divorce agreements, plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate their entitlement to damages where plaintiffs' own conduct meant that defendants' breach was not the cause of plaintiffs' alleged loss.
Publication Date: 2022-08-02
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Traynor
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, Ronald A. Brown, Jr., Stephen D. Dargitz, J. Clayton Athey, Marcus E. Montejo, Samuel L. Closic, Prickett Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Carl L. Stine, Adam J. Blander, Antoinette Adesanya, Wolf Popper LLP, New York, NY; Brian D. Long, Long Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Frank P. DiPrima, Law Office of Frank DiPrima, P.A., Morristown, NJ for appellants.
for defendant: Kevin G. Abrams, John M. Seaman, Matthew L. Miller, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; John A. Neuwirth, Evert J. Christensen, Jr., Seth Goodchild, Matthew S. Connors, Nicole E. Prunetti, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY; Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Berton W. Ashman, Jr., and Jaclyn C. Levy, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter E. Kazanoff, Michael J. Garvey, Sara A. Ricciardi, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, NY; Raymond J. Dicamillo, Susan M. Hannigan, Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, DE; Brian T. Frawley, Y. Carson Zhou, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY; David J. Teklits, Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellees.
Case Number: D69905
Dividing merger transaction into substantial pre-closing dividend and meager "per share merger consideration" did not frustrate stockholders' appraisal rights since dividend legally constituted merger consideration.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read