Epstein Secrets

ights are determined under state law, even when the United States is a party." United States v. O'Block, 788 F.2d 1433, 1435 (10th Cir.1986) (citing Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363, 378-81, 97 S.Ct. 582, 50 L.Ed.2d 550 (1977)). [FN7] FN7. Indeed, the Supreme C

aw in landlord-tenant disputes involving the Government, there is no "distinct need" for a nationwide legal standard or a uniform national rule. See Kamen, 500 U.S. at 98. Landlord- tenant law traditionally has been a matter of state law. There is no compelling reason to disrupt expectations that tenan

rights are determined under state law, even when the United States is a party." United States I O'Block, 788 F.2d 1433, 1435 (10th Cir.1986) (citing Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363, 378-81, 97 S.Ct. 582, 50 L.Ed.2d 550 (1977)). [FN7] FN7. Indeed, the Supreme Cou

tenant disputes involving the Government, there is no "distinct need" for a EFTA00223057 nationwide legal standard or a uniform national rule. See Kamen, 500 U.S. at 98. Landlord- tenant law traditionally has been a matter of state law. There is no compelling reason to disrupt expectations that tenan

s land for- termined under state law, even when the United States is a party." United States 1 O'Block, 788 F.2d 1423, 1435 (10th Cir.198M (citing Oregon ex rel. State Land lid Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363, 378-81, 97 S.Ct. 582, 60 L.Ed.2d 650 (1977)).7 Second, application of state subst

landlord-tenant disputes involving the Gov- ernment, there is no "distinct need" for a nationwide legal standard or a uniform na- tional rule. See Kamen, 500 U.S. at 98 Ill S.Ct, 1711. Landlord-tenant law traditional- ly has been a matter of state law. There is no compelling reason to disrupt expect

ghts are determined under state law, even when the United States is a party." United States v. O'Block, 788 F.2d 1433, 1435 (10th Cir.1986) (citing Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363, 378-81, 97 S.Ct. 582, 50 L.Ed.2d 550 (1977)). [FN7] FN7. Indeed, the Supreme C

w in landlord-tenant disputes involving the Government, there is no "distinct need" for a nationwide legal standard or a uniform national rule. See Kamen, 500 U.S. at 98. Landlord- tenant law traditionally has been a matter of state law. There is no compelling reason to disrupt expectations that tena