TITLE

Judge tosses most claims in Sullivan Square lawsuit

AUTHOR(S)
ILLIA, TONY
PUB. DATE
August 2008
SOURCE
Las Vegas Business Press (10712186);8/25/2008, Vol. 25 Issue 34, pP10
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article reports on the throwing out of the lawsuit against Sullivan Square project. The author states that the Clark County District Court Judge Mark Denton has dismissed five of the seven items contained in the lawsuit of Glen, Smith & Glen Development against Ireland-based Harcourt Development, Dublin, over their planned $1 billion, 1,300 units complex at Durango Drive and Las Vegas Beltway in Las Vegas. Judgment made is based on the law protection provided on the limited liability corporations in which the development partnership was conceived.
ACCESSION #
34154913

 

Related Articles

  • SULLIVAN SQUARE CLAIMS TOSSED. Illia, Tony // Las Vegas Business Press (10712186);12/29/2008, Vol. 25 Issue 52, pP9 

    The article reports on the decision of Clark County District Court Judge Mark Denton to dismiss most of the items contained in the lawsuit filed by Glen, Smith & Glen Development against Harcourt Development over their planned high-rise complex in Las Vegas, Nevada on August 7, 2008. The...

  • GSG loses legal fight on Sullivan Square project. ILLIA, TONY // Las Vegas Business Press (10712186);4/27/2009, Vol. 26 Issue 17, pP18 

    The article reports on the legal dispute between GSG Development and former partner Harcourt Development which was lost by GSG Development. The legal battle originated from dispute over costs associated with a failed high-rise project in the southwestern Las Vegas Valley in Nevada. Harcourt was...

  • Lies will not get around planning laws, court rules. Macrory, Richard // ENDS (Environmental Data Services);Jun2011, Issue 437, p65 

    The article comments on the decision of the Supreme Court on a lawsuit concerning the execution of laws against illegal development in Great Britain. The author notes that the court's decision held that deceit cannot be used to take advantage of planning rules on illegal developments. The case...

  • Ohio Supreme Court Limits Eminent Domain Actions.  // ENR: Engineering News-Record;8/7/2006, Vol. 257 Issue 6, p22 

    The article presents information on a ruling by Ohio Supreme Court in a case between private developer Rookwood Partners and the city of Norwood in Cincinnati. According to the ruling, a city could not condemn land only on the basis of economic benefits. A finding that the area to be taken for...

  • Dennis and others v Davies. O'Grady, Eileen // Estates Gazette;12/13/2008, Issue 849, p76 

    The article presents a summary of court cases related to real property in Great Britain. In the case Dennis and others v. Davies Chancery Division, the defendant obtained planning permission to erect a three-storey side extension and work was commenced while the claimants brought a claim to...

  • A change of heart can hurt. Edwards, Martin; Martin, John // Estates Gazette;2/7/2004, Issue 406, p142 

    Discusses a lawsuit filed by Saunders against Tendring District Council in Great Britain in 2003 relating to Saunders's application of development planning permission. Details of the case; Legal principles involved; Decision of the court on the case.

  • Eastleigh Borough Council v First Secretary of State and another. O'Grady, Eileen; Rowe, Stephen // Estates Gazette;6/12/2004, Issue 424, p149 

    Discusses the case Eastleigh Borough Council versus First Secretary of State and another, which focused on planning permission for the development of a supermarket and the application of lawful development certificate (LDC) for the property in Great Britain. Facts of the case; Reason for the...

  • Court stops hill housing.  // Planning (14672073);8/1/2008, Issue 1780, p5 

    The article reports that a High Court ruling has favored the Dinedor Hill Action Association on its contention that Herefordshire County Council cannot just allocate land at Bullinghope for housing in its unitary development plan. The court explains that the Bullinghope housing development is no...

  • R (on the application of Prokopp) v London Underground Ltd and others. Dobson, Sally // Estates Gazette;5/10/2003, Issue 319, p119 

    Presents a summary of a case on town and country planning enforcement in Great Britain. Issue concerning lapsed planning permission; Allegations of unlawful commencement of development; Decision of the High Court.

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics