Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it.
Founded in 1967, the PTAB was originally a panel of final administrative appeal for property tax assessment cases from the 101 counties of Illinois other than Cook County, Illinois's largest county in terms of population and property value. In 1997, the Illinois General Assembly expanded PTAB's jurisdictions to cover Cook County. PTAB, by ...
A restraint on alienation, in the law of real property, is a clause used in the conveyance of real property that seeks to prohibit the recipient from selling or otherwise transferring their interest in the property. Under the common law such restraints are void as against the public policy of
Appealing these hikes is proving difficult. ‘People are going to lose their property’: This Illinois woman’s property tax is poised to pop from $756 to over $10,000 — a shocking 1,222% spike.
There are two main views on the right to property in the United States, the traditional view and the bundle of rights view. [6] The traditionalists believe that there is a core, inherent meaning in the concept of property, while the bundle of rights view states that the property owner only has bundle of permissible uses over the property. [1]
If you’re an Illinois resident or business owner, you have until April 18, 2023, to file your Illinois state income taxes. If you’re expecting a refund this year, this quick guide explains how ...
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case that involved issues concerning statutory standing in antitrust law.. The decision established the rule that indirect purchasers of goods or services along a supply chain cannot seek damages for antitrust violations committed by the original manufacturer or service provider, but it permitted such claims ...
The "polestar" of regulatory takings jurisprudence is Penn Central Transp. Co. v.New York City (1973). [3] In Penn Central, the Court denied a takings claim brought by the owner of Grand Central Terminal following refusal of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve plans for construction of 50-story office building over Grand Central Terminal.