In Murr v. Wisconsin, 2017 WL 2694699 (U.S. 2017), the Supreme Court held that a zoning law that treated two contiguous parcels owned by the same persons as one parcel to determine minimum developable lot size was not an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. The merger law provided for variances that might allow development for lots that contained less than one acre of developable space but did not provide for such a variance if two lots were merged.
The Georgia Supreme Court has interpreted a will leaving land to the "surviving heir or heirs" of the decedent's child as creating a life estate in the child with a contingent remainder in the child's heirs. Anderson v. Anderson, 791 S.E. 2d 40 (Ga. 2016)
The Idaho Supreme Court reaffirmed the traditional rule that part performance of a real estate agreement can constitute an exception to the statute of frauds. If that is the case, a contract that would otherwise be unenforceable because it does not comply with the statutory writing formalities may be enforced nonetheless. Hoke v. NeYada, 387 P.3d 118 (Idaho 2016). The case involved a lease with an option to purchase. Because the "buyer" had already entered into possession of the Read more about Part performance as exception to the statute of frauds
Courts traditionally refuse to recognize aesthetic nuisances. The mere objection to the appearance of structures on neighboring property is insufficient to constitute a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land. Although some courts in recent years have recognized the possibility of an aesthetic nuisance, the Vermont Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the traditional rule when owners complained of ugly solar panels on neighboring property owned by companies that used the land to construct solar arrays. Read more about No right to be protected from aesthetic nuisance (solar panels)
Lands owned by Indian nations and held in trust status cannot be taken by the states by eminent domain, although federal statutory authority allows states to take "allotments" held by the United States in trust for individual tribal citizens for public purposes including utility easements. 25 U.S.C. §357. The Tenth Circuit has held that if the tribe (in this case the Navajo Nation) owns a fractional interest in an allotment, then the state (or its service companies) cannot use eminent domain power to take a utility easement from those allotment owners. Read more about States may not take tribal land by eminent domain
In Howell v. Howell, 197 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2017), the Supreme Court interpreted and applied a federal statute that allows veterans' retirement pay to be distributed on divorce as community property but does not allow distribution of disability benefits. 10 U.S.C. §1408(c)(1), §1408(a)(4)(B).