The Supreme Court of North Dakota has refused to create an exception to the general rule that an unincorporated association may not hold title to real estate under state law.  It has denied a request by a nonprofit association to make an exception to recognize a deed the association claimed it received from the former owner.  (The Next Step v. Redmon, Supreme Ct., ND, No. 20150333, 5/26/16.)

The national Council for American-Islamic Relations Action Network may be liable for the failures of the unlicensed “attorney” for a local chapter after all.  The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has reversed a trial court decision dismissing claims by individuals who were not served even though they had paid the “attorney” to help them.

A “planning committee” advising the Kent State University Foundation on the use of funds for a symposium lacks standing to challenge the Foundation’s decision to suspend the symposium, an appellate court in Ohio has ruled.  It has affirmed a trial court decision that the committee was not a third-party beneficiary of the original gift agreement and had no standing to enforce the terms of the agreement.

A volunteer coach of a high school football team has been dismissed from a wrongful death suit brought by the parents of a high school football player who was allowed to return to play after suffering a concussion.  An appellate court in Washington has affirmed a trial court decision dismissing the coach under the state’s volunteer immunity law but permitting the case to proceed against the school.

The heirs of donors who gave land to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, have no reversionary interest in the property when the donors effectively released and extinguished the reverter by a subsequent deed to the city, the Court of Appeals of Arkansas has ruled.

A divided Supreme Court of Ohio has held that real estate used by a religious organization to broadcast Christian music and weekly religious services is entitled to real estate tax exemption as “property used for church purposes.”  Two dissenting justices, including the Chief Justice, dissented on the grounds that the majority had gone too far in its ruling.