Recently in Property Law Category

District court's ruling on remand involving status of Indian lands held in trust is affirmed in part and vacated in part where:  1) the court correctly concluded that the agency trust lands, the outstanding allotments, and the IRA trust lands are part of the Yankton Sioux Reservation and are Indian country under 18 U.S.C. section 1151(a); 2) the court's alternative holding that the miscellaneous trust lands constitute a dependent Indian community and are Indian country under section 1151(b) is affirmed; 3) court's holding that the fee lands continuously held in Indian ownership are reservation under section 1151(a) is vacated and; 4) the court's denial of all other claims for relief is affirmed.     

Read Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, No. 08-1441

Appellate Information

Submitted: March 11, 2009

Filed: August 25, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Murphy, Circuit Judge

District court judgment denying plaintiff's motion to remand to state court is reversed where the court erred in finding that plaintiffs' claim under the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act was completely preempted by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, as the federal remedy does not apply and therefore is not the exclusive remedy. The case is remanded to district court with directions to reinstate the claims and remand the case to state court.   

Read Thomas v. US Bank Nat'l Assoc. ND, No. 08-3302

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Westesrn District of Missouri.
Submitted: April 13, 2009
Filed: August 6, 2009

Judges
Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by BYE, Circuit Judge.

District court judgment is affirmed where the County Commission's denial of defendant's application for a special use permit to construct a telecommunications tower complied with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as it was in writing and supported by substantial evidence.   

Read Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Platte County, MO, No. 08-1965

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Submitted: January 15, 2009
Filed: August 6, 2009

Judges
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by COLLOTON, Circuit Judge

District court's grant of summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where the court erred in holding the mortgage was invalid under state law because both spouses did not sign it, as: 1) plaintiffs are estopped from claiming invalid mortgage since the nonsigning spouse knew of and intended to mortgage the homestead; 2) she retained benefits; and 3) the bank significantly changed its position in reliance on validity of mortgage. 

Read Karnitz v. Well Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 08-2100

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Submitted: February 12, 2009
Filed: July 17, 2009

Judges
Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by HANSEN, Circuit Judge.
Dissenting Opinion by Bye, Circuit Judge.

In action to determine whether the utility or developer must bear costs of relocating utilities to accommodate construction of streets within city limits, district court judgment is affirmed where the court did not err in concluding plaintiff must bear the costs, as development is a private commercial development involving no city actors, and the city's conditions to a permit application's approval does not convert a private development into public works project. 

Read Whisenhunt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, No. 08-3542

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Submitted: April 16, 2009
Filed: July 17, 2009

Judges
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

In an action seeking to quiet title and enjoin defendant from attempting to claim disputed waters for public use, district court judgment dismissing the suit is affirmed where: 1) the court erred in concluding the case is not ripe for adjudication as there is a live controversy; and 2) the court reached the proper result and the case must be dismissed as the suit against the Arkansas Attorney General in his official capacity is bared by the Eleventh Amendment and the Ex Parte Young exception does not apply. 

Read Anderson-Tully Co. v. McDaniel, No. 08-3469

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Submitted: June 9, 2009
Filed: July 7, 2009

Judges
Before BYE, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by BYE, Circuit Judge.

In a tort action alleging the environmental contamination of Plaintiffs' property, summary judgment for Defendants on statute of limitations grounds is reversed where there was an issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs knew or reasonably should have known before the date at issue that their property had suffered a remediable injury as a result of Defendants' actions.

Read Harry Stephens Farms, Inc. v. Wormald Americas, Inc., No. 07-3547.

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Submitted: June 4, 2009
Decided: June 19, 2009

Judges
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by PER CURIAM.