3rd Circuit Property Law News - U.S. Third Circuit
U.S. Third Circuit - The FindLaw 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Property Law Category

Rare Double Eagle Coins Worth $75M Are Gov't Property, 3rd Cir. Says

Unless this nation's highest court grants cert to the Langbord family, ten very rare and highly prized 1933 Double Eagle $20 (face value) gold coins are -- and always have been -- the property of the United States of America.

By the way, that's not $200 that's at stake: it's at least $75 million. No wonder there was such a fight!

3rd Cir. Tosses Anti-Trust Suit Against Sanofi-Aventis, Twists Knife

Judge Jane Roth of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in New Jersey soundly dismissed the Eisai v. Sanofi-Aventis anti-competition lawsuit in her court when she denounced every one of the characterizations Eisai had used to describe Sanofi's conduct, reports Reuters. Finally, this thing looks put to bed.

It's a major win for the large pharmaceutical company that will be holding the attention of industry regulars for at least a few weeks.

3rd Cir. Trips Over Meaning of 'Replace' in Gas Line Easement

The majority said that this was a "straightforward" case: Columbia Gas Transmission has the "right of eminent domain to obtain easements over the land of objecting landowners, outside of the existing right of way, in order to replace deteriorating pipeline."

And yet, the dissent (and the district court) felt that this was far more complicated, because it depends on how you define "replace" -- replace in place, or replace and reroute, up to a mile from the original location of the gas line. (H/T to The Legal Intelligencer.)

Who said law can't be interesting?

In PA, Murder/Suicide Not a Material Defect Requiring Disclosure

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday issued its opinion in Milliken v. Jacono, holding that a home's seller didn't have to disclose a murder/suicide that occurred in the house because it didn't affect the price of the house. A grisly fact pattern to be sure, but the Supreme Court rooted its opinion in the more prosaic world of real estate.

New Jersey officials, as well as environmental activists, are challenging seismic studies from just 15 miles off Barnegat Light, reports The SandPaper. The parties requested a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied. Earlier this week, the Third Circuit also declined to grant the preliminary injunction.

Let's take a closer look at the legal -- and environmental issues -- at stake.

It's not often that we review state Supreme Court cases, but when the court is the Delaware Supreme Court, and that court adopts a new standard of review to apply to certain types of buyouts hat will likely affect many U.S. corporations -- we listen.

The Deal

The present case that brought about an upheaval in Delaware corporate law revolves around Ronald Perelman's corporate universe. Ronald Perelman owns MacAndrew & Forbes, which in turn owned a 43% stake in MFW. In 2011, Perelman began exploring the opportunity to take MFW private and received independent valuations that MFW stock was worth between $10 and $32.

How do the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the Higher Education Act of 1965 ("HEA") interact, when it comes to the information a university reports to a credit agency related to student loan indebtedness? That was the question before the Third Circuit in Seamans v. Temple University.


Edward Seamans received a Federal Perkins Loan, on January 16, 1989, from Temple University ("Temple"), in the amount of $1,180. His first payment was due on January 20, 1992, he did not pay, and in August of the same year, Temple notified him that the loan was forwarded for collection.

In the continuing tug-of-war between states and the EPA, the Clean Water Act is again up for review in the Third Circuit. Not just an environmental issue, cases such as this illustrate the difficulty in finding a balance of power between the state and federal government.


The American Farm Bureau Federation filed claims in federal court alleging that under the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), the EPA (1) lacked authority to issue the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sediment ("TMDL"); (2) the TMDL is ultra vires; (3) the TMDL is arbitrary and capricious; and (4) the EPA's actions violated the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA").

In this private class action against Kid Brands, Inc, and its officers, a private shareholder's pleading requirements are examined, and clarified.

Earlier this week, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with an issue of first impression: whether state tort claims, brought by private property owners against an in-state source of pollution, were preempted by the Clean Air Act. The district court found that the claims were preempted.

The Third Circuit disagreed, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.