Iowa Supreme Court rukes that easement grantee has right to driveway use but must maintain tree canopy over it;Des Moines, IA

Laws, Life, and Legal Matters - Court Cases and Legal Information at Leagle.com - All Federal and State Appeals Court Cases in One Search:
KERSEY v. BABICH
THOMAS E. KERSEY and COLLINA F. KERSEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
v.
LESLIE BABICH, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
No. 9-790/08-1556.
Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed February 10, 2010.
Fred L. Dorr of Wasker, Dorr, Wimmer & Marcouiller, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants.
Alexander R. Rhoads of Babich, Goldman, Cashatt & Renzo, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Danilson, J., and Huitink, S.J.[ 1 ]

Judge rules clearing of streamside canopy improper but appeals court overturns, rules for developer; Yancey County, NC

Laws, Life, and Legal Matters - Court Cases and Legal Information at Leagle.com - All Federal and State Appeals Court Cases in One Search: "The Commission granted Mountain Air's request for a variance from the buffer requirements mandated in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A5-7(1). Mountain Air then proceeded to remove trees and tree canopy along 2,763 feet of Banks Creek, and to clear all buffer vegetation along 160 feet of Banks Creek. Mountain Air also temporarily diverted the course of a section of Banks Creek through pipes eighteen inches in diameter in order to install 1,868 feet of underground pipes, some as small as 36 inches in diameter. Finally, Mountain Air redirected that section of Banks Creek into the underground pipe system, and began construction of a fairway over a section of the piped trout waters."

Supreme Court overturns lower court, gives New Jersey towns right to make residents and developers pay into fund when removing private property trees

Want to cut down your tree? - South Bergenite:
(by Michael Lamendola - May 27, 2009)
In the future, it could cost big bucks
Towns statewide now have free reign to charge residents and developers who take down trees on private property and do not replace them so new trees can be planted elsewhere within town borders on public land, preserving town canopies.
The decision came by way of a Supreme Court ruling last week, stemming from a lawsuit brought forth by the New Jersey Shore Builder's Association, which challenged an ordinance passed in 2003 by Jackson Township that enabled the town to create an escrow fund, charging between $200 and $800 per tree that was brought down. The fund was established to help the township maintain its tree stock, replacing those that went down with others in town parks or other township-owned properties. In 2004, the New Jersey Shore Builder's Association filed suit to deem the ordinance invalid and was successful in gaining a ruling deeming the ordinance invalid by a trial court in 2005. The association contested that the ordinance applied a false tax and was just implemented to raise extra revenue for the township. Soon after, an appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. In last week's overturning of the lower courts' decisions however, the Supreme Court judges said the ordinance would "serve broad environmental goals."