Over the last 25 years, since its adoption by Congress in 2000, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) has been the subject of much litigation, when religious organization have tried to establish uses otherwise inconsistent with local zoning. Significantly, the issues the courts have dealt with are whether the denial of a religious use at a specific location places a substantial burden on religious observance, or if the denial of such a use in a specific location is a proper exercise of government authority. Further, another question often addressed is whether there are potentially other nearby properties where the religious use might reasonably locate.
Defense Due To DHCR’s Refusal to Correct Registration Mistake; Tenant’s Breach of Contract Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss; Acceptance of Surrender Does Not Relieve Tenant of Liability for Damages
Mutual Mistake About Ownership Does Not Defeat Cotenant’s Adverse Possession Claim; Servient Owner’s Laches Defense Reinstated In Easement Dispute; Constructive Notice Precludes Village’s Claim to Be Free of State’s Unrecorded Easement; Complaint Does Not Support Claim That Deed Was Forged
Co-Op Entitled to Withhold Consent to Sublet; Unit Owner Lacks Standing to Challenge Another Owner’s Parking Practices; Fair Housing Act Challenge Dismissed
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
The doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
