Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
Associate of Arts in Architecture, LACC
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Repair/Rehab Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO Consultant
CTAC LEED Certification
The Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*
630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 Cell
WebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com
Resume: http://harriscompanyrec.com/commercialappraiser.pdf
Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/
IT'S THE LAW-Designation Discrimination is Illegal [FIRREA, Sec. 564.6]: Professional Association Membership http://www.orea.ca.gov/html/fed_regs.shtml#Statement7 Membership in an appraisal organization: A State Certified General Appraiser may not be excluded from consideration for an assignment for a federally related transaction by virtue of membership or lack of membership in any particular appraisal organization, including the appraisal institute.
CONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal.
Subject: Environmental Law Distributed July 31, 2015
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:11:27 +0000
Environmental Law Distributed July 31, 2015
If you are unable to see this message,
click here
to view it in a web browser.
To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add
[email protected]
to your address book.
Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a FREE service.
Subscribe to summaries of US appellate court opinions at Daily.Justia.com
Practice area emails with summaries from all reviewed courts are sent weekly.
You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole.
Today on Verdict
The Prospects for Presidential Election Reform as the 2016 Campaign Season Gets Underway
Vikram David Amar
Law professor and dean designate of the University of Illinois College of Law Vikram David Amar provides an update on the so-called National Popular Vote (NPV) interstate compact plan in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Read Article
Weekly Opinion Summaries
Environmental Law
Weekly Summaries Distributed July 31, 2015
Miller v. Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law
Alaska Supreme Court
Rogers Cartage Co. v. Monsanto Co.
Environmental Law, Real Estate & Property Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP
Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law
Minnesota Supreme Court
Teton Coop. Reservoir Co. v. Farmer Coop. Canal Co.
Environmental Law, Real Estate & Property Law
Montana Supreme Court
In re Crow Water Compact
Environmental Law, Native American Law, Real Estate & Property Law
Montana Supreme Court
Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia
Miller v. Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Court: Alaska Supreme Court
Docket: S-15370
Opinion Date:
July 24, 2015
Areas of Law:
Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law
An oyster farmer closed his farm after dozens of people became sick from eating his oysters. He sued the state Department of Environmental Conservation, alleging that the agency negligently informed him that the site of his farm was suitable for shellfish farming. The superior court granted summary judgment for the agency, concluding that the farmer’s misrepresentation claim was barred by state sovereign immunity. The farmer argued on appeal that the agency’s sovereign immunity defense was inapplicable because his complaint alleged a claim of negligence, not negligent misrepresentation. After review, the Supreme Court found the allegations in the farmer’s complaint supported only a negligent misrepresentation claim. Therefore, the Court affirmed the superior court's order granting summary judgment to the agency.
View Case On:
Justia
Google Scholar
Rogers Cartage Co. v. Monsanto Co.
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Docket: 13-3052, Docket: 12-3624
Opinion Date:
July 27, 2015
Areas of Law:
Environmental Law, Real Estate & Property Law
Monsanto operated chemical plants and disposed of waste, including PCBs, at sites within Sauget Area 1. In 1999, the government filed suit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), to recover EPA costs in removing hazardous substances from Area 1, which follows Dead Creek through Sauget and Cahokia, Illinois. Monsanto (later Pharmacia) and Solutia, original defendants, filed a third-party complaint adding Rogers, which formerly operated trucking depots near Area 1, alleging that Rogers washed trucks after hauling hazardous substances, releasing substances into drainage systems that emptied into Dead Creek. The government added Rogers as a defendant, and other defendants brought cross-claims. In 2003, the court dismissed other claims against Rogers because it had been found not liable on the government’s claim under 42 U.S.C. 9607. In 2007, the Supreme Court decided “Atlantic Research,” establishing that potentially responsible parties that incur voluntary CERCLA cleanup costs may seek contribution from other potentially responsible parties. Four defendants filed an amended cross-claim; Rogers filed counterclaims, alleging that Monsanto had arranged for transport and disposal of hazardous substances without informing Rogers of the nature of the substances involved. The four settled, with Rogers paying $50,000 if it cooperated in efforts to recover the difference from its insurer. The settlement released all claims “brought or alleged, or which could have been brought or alleged” in the EPA action. The agreement contemplated that cleanup of Rogers’s depot would be paid for out of settlement proceeds. Rogers leased that land from ConocoPhillips, which filed a separate action against Rogers, seeking contribution for its voluntary cleanup costs. Rogers filed a third-party complaint against Pharmacia and Solutia. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the subsequent dismissal, finding the claim barred, by the settlement, and sanctions against Rogers.
View Case On:
Justia
Google Scholar
In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Docket: A13-1461
Opinion Date:
July 29, 2015
Areas of Law:
Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law
Reichmann Land and Cattle, LLP managed a winter feeding facility. In 2011, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued an administrative order requiring Reichmann to obtain national-pollutant-discharge-elimination-system (NPDES) and state-disposal-system (SDS) permits or discontinue the winter feeding operation. Reichmann requested a contested case hearing. An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Reichmann’s winter feeding fields constituted a “concentrated animal feeding operation” and were not “pastures.” Therefore, Reichmann was required to apply for an NPDES/SDS permit. The Commissioner of the MPCA adopted the findings and conclusions of the ALJ. The court of appeals affirmed the Commissioner’s conclusion that Reichmann must apply for an SDS permit but reversed the Commission’s requirement that Reichmann must apply for an NPDES permit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Reichmann need not obtain an NPDES permit because its winter feeding facility is not an animal feeding operation as required by 40 C.F.R. 122.23(b)(1); and (2) Reichmann is required to obtain an SDS permit because it does not qualify for the pasture exemption.
View Case On:
Justia
Google Scholar
Teton Coop. Reservoir Co. v. Farmer Coop. Canal Co.
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Citation: 2015 MT 208
Opinion Date:
July 28, 2015
Areas of Law:
Environmental Law, Real Estate & Property Law
Farmers Cooperative Canal Company (FCCC) was incorporated in 1897 for the purpose of appropriating, transporting, and using irrigation water from the Teton River. FCCC acquired two water rights with priority dates of 1895 and 1897. FCCC const
ructed two reservoirs, Harvey Lake Rese
rvoir in 1913 and Farmers Reservoir in 1942. Using its reservoirs, FCCC began to store portions of the water diverted to it during the year, which allowed it to release water as needed throughout the year. Based on its rights and these practices, FCCC filed statements of claim for its 1895 and 1897 rights, claiming use of the two reservoirs as part of those rights. Teton Cooperative Reservoir Company (TCRC) objected to FCCC’s claims, arguing that FCCC’s reservoirs were not part of its 1895 or 1897 rights and, instead, were new, independent appropriations not entitled to the priority dates of either claim. The Water Court concluded that the reservoirs could be used as part of the 1895 and 1897 rights because they did not expand the period of diversion, volume, or flow rate of those rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Water Court correctly concluded that FCCC’s reservoirs did not expand FCCC’s water rights and that the reservoirs could be included in FCCC’s 1895 and 1897 rights.
View Case On:
Justia
Google Scholar
In re Crow Water Compact
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Citation: 2015 MT 217
Opinion Date:
July 29, 2015
Areas of Law:
Environmental Law, Native American Law, Real Estate & Property Law
At dispute in this case was the Crow Water Compact - an agreement among the United States, the Crow Tribe, and the State - which recognizes a Tribal Water Right of the Crow Tribe and its members in a number of sources of water that abut or cross the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana. Here, a group of Crow tribal member Allottees - persons who hold interests in parcels of former Tribal land mostly created by the General Allotment Act - objected to the Compact in the Water Court, claiming that the United States breached its fiduciary duties to the Allottees by failing to protect their water rights in the Compact and failing to adequately represent them in Compact proceedings. The Water Court dismissed the Allottees’ objections. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Water Court (1) applied the proper legal standard of review in dismissing the Allottees’ objections; (2) did not exceed its jurisdiction by dismissing the Allottees’ action rather than staying consideration of the Compact pending resolution of the Allottees’ action in federal district court; and (3) did not err in determining that the Allottees have rights to a share of the Crow Tribal Water Right and that the United States adequately represented the Allottees during the Compact negotiations.
View Case On:
Justia
Google Scholar
Forward to a Friend
Have friends who like law? Forward this email.
Find Us on Facebook
Like Justia and enjoy legal discussions on Facebook.
Follow Us on Twitter
Follow Justiacom for news and updates on Twitter.
Justia.com Free Legal Information Portal
Federal & State Case Law, Codes & Regs
Law.Justia.com
US Federal Case Filings & Dockets
Dockets.Justia.com
Daily Opinion Summaries
Daily.Justia.com
You received this email because you have subscribed to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries. You can subscribe to summaries for US Courts, including the US Supreme Court, all US Courts of Appeals and some US state courts.
Visit the Justia Daily Opinion Summaries page to add, edit or remove subscriptions.
If you are experiencing problems with this newsletter, please email our tech support team at [email protected].
Unsubscribe From This Newsletter
or unsubscribe [email protected] immediately here.
"Justia" is a registered trademark of Justia Inc.
Justia •
Justia, Inc.
1380 Pear Ave
Suite 2B
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
Have a Happy Day!
Hug the Pug
© 2011-2015, Justia Inc.
commercial appraiser, commercial appraisal, commercial appraiser la
Comments