Posted by Cliff Tuttle Adams Township is a growing community in Southern Butler County, located on Route 228, between Cranberry Township and Mars. The Township’s zoning officer turned down an application to operate a dancing school in May. So the Applicant, forgoing the usual avenue of appeal, filed a Complaint in the US District Court, [...]
Carolyn persuasively argues that solos are the true pioneers in implementing advances in legal technology and trends that make law practice more efficient and effective. They bring down the cost of practice and thus the cost of legal services to the public. They are more likely to be wireless, paperless and even happy.
What do you think about the $100,000.00 settlement? Based on what is reported in the newspaper (which is not necessarily what the trial testimony would indicate) would you be inclined to make an award for the plaintiff? Lawyers: what would you look for before you would be willing to take this kind of case for a plaintiff?
There are relatively inexpensive e-discovery capture and review tools available which can suit the needs of smaller law firms and companies. During the past year, we have seen significant growth among small and medium sized law firms toward establishing in-house processing and review capabilities. And once the tools/systems are in place, the attorney time necessary to review thousands of potentially relevant documents can drop dramatically, making the whole process more affordable for the client.
But to the buyer, it can make a big difference. The property will probably appraise for the full amount of the inflated sales price. The buyer is thus able to borrow more money. As a consequence of this and a few more little tricks (like simultaneous first and second mortgages), the buyer comes away with very little equity, often no equity, in the property on the day of closing.
Commonwealth Court holds that zoning ordinance requiring one acre minimum can cause merger of undersized lots under common ownership prior to enactment of the ordinance.
“lots are presumed to merge as necessary to comply with a zoning ordinance’s lot size requirements when they are under common ownership prior to the passage of the ordinance. It is the landowner’s burden to rebut this presumption by proving the intent to keep the lots separate and distinct. In doing so, the landowner’s subjective intent is not determinative, rather, there must be proof of some overt or physical manifestation of intent to keep the lots in question separate and distinct.”
Customers of some of the largest home lenders in America are reporting that they have accepted loan modification offers from loss mitigation departments, ostensibly set up for the purpose of stemming the tide of foreclosures, and lived up to their end of the bargain, only to have the lender proceed with foreclosure anyway. This has occurred, without explanation, after the borrower has sometimes paid a substantial fee and even several monthly payments. Reports of such incidents are widespread on the internet.
There is no reason why we cannot have a dialogue about a post in the Comments. And if someone else wants to join in our two-way discussion, fine.
Posted by Cliff Tuttle The most significant decision of the United States Supreme Court in the term ending this June may have been Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., cited below in the guest blog article by patent attorney Thomas Joseph. If you’ve been meaning to find out about this important case, here it [...]
Posted by Cliff Tuttle AVVO, the lawyer rating website, runs a Q&A feature called AVVO Answers and Advice. Readers ask questions and lawyers who have claimed their AVVO pages answer them. Some questions are more-widely read than others and AVVO recently posted a few that were the most popular. Here’s one about a woman who [...]
keep looking »