Thursday
April 27, 2017

Law & Ethics: In Court Articles

  • Fri, 12/01/2006

    A New Jersey appeals court has decided that a listing broker’s initial failure to inform the sellers that the broker’s husband was the buyer of a property doesn’t void the purchase contract since the sellers knew about the relationship before signing.

  • Fri, 12/01/2006

    Ohio’s highest court has ruled that a city can’t use its eminent domain powers to take private property when the only public purpose of the seizure is economic benefit.

  • Wed, 11/01/2006

    A Texas court has held a broker liable for an investor’s damages resulting from the broker volunteering inaccurate information about a property’s zoning.

  • Wed, 11/01/2006

    A Florida court will hear a suit by a former owner of four condominium units in a building against other building residents who placed For Sale by Owner signs in their windows on the day his units were being sold at auction.

  • Sun, 10/01/2006

    A Missouri court has ruled that a REALTOR® association’s hearing process for a violation of the local MLS’s rules provided adequate due process for an accused member.

  • Sun, 10/01/2006

    An Ohio appellate court has decided that a local REALTOR® association had no legal obligation to continue to allow the public to access an association-sponsored property listing Web site.

  • Fri, 09/01/2006

    A Minnesota federal court decided to let an action brought by a real estate company against a rival for using the company’s name as an Internet search term proceed.

  • Fri, 09/01/2006

    The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands didn’t provide sufficient notice to a home owner who owed back taxes before seizing and auctioning off his home.

  • Tue, 08/01/2006

    A New Jersey appeals court has decided that a salesperson’s misstatement about the area in which a property was located could be a misrepresentation under the state’s consumer protection statute.

  • Tue, 08/01/2006

    An Illinois appeals court has ruled that a lender’s rejection of buyers for a loan after preapproving them doesn’t constitute fraud.