Here are the cases and materials we discussed on today's lead off session on 2017's developments and trends in eminent domain law at the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference.
Above, our annual "proof of life" photo from the lectern showing that yes, indeed, we were all here in the room in Charleston (with record attendance, standing room only!):
- Colorado: Taking for public infrastructure use is not for a taking for a public purpose.
- Getting creative in right-to-take challenges in Texas: The Lazy W. Update from Texas lawyer Jeff Mead (Locke Lord): the case was briefed on appeal, but settled in the summer of 2017.
- Hawaii Supreme Court on looking behind the curtain in public use challenges: County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd. P'ship.
- Proving pretext in public use challenges: lessons from First Amendment litigation: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).
- Georgia Supreme Court on the Pirate's Code and the "strict construction" maxim: the Georgia Property Owner's Bill of Rights are not mere "guidelines.".
- Latest Chapter in the NC Map Act Cases: State Does Not Have Sovereign Immunity From Takings: "sovereign immunity must be juxtaposed with the contrary sovereignty of the individual, whose natural rights preceded government and were enumerated in the federal Bill of Rights."
- Hawaii Supreme Court on the "larger parcel" and "conditional deposit" issues (the parcels need not touch).
- Here's the amicus brief we filed in the above case, which cites Baetjer v. United States, 143 F.2d 391, 395 (1st Cir.) (condemnation on island of Vieques caused severance damages to parcels on Puerto Rico), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 772 (1944).
Other cases in your materials but that we didn't cover in the presentation (but are still worth reviewing):
- Colorado App Clarifies State Constitution's "Damaging" Clause: Forcing A Neighbor To Provide Lateral Support Is Compensable.
- NC: Evidence Of Rental Income From A Billboard Is Admissible In Just Comp Trial.
- Virginia's "Buyback" Statute Requires Owner Pay Premium After Condemnor Devalues Property.
- Fla App: Highest And Best Use Doesn't Require Owner Have More Than "Conceptual Plans."
- Oregon Supreme Court on "Fees on Fees."
- We've Always Done it This Way: Brott v. United States and Article III judges and juries in federal inverse condemnation cases.
- The Staten Island case: owner proved it was reasonably likely that it would have proven a taking for preexisting wetlands regulations (and won a Penn Central case!).
- Maui beachfront case (would you pay $1 for the land?): Leone v. County of Maui and denial of "use," or denial of "value." Hawaii Adds To Lower Court Regulatory Takings Split: Is Leaving Land Vacant On The Hope It Is Worth More In The Future "Economically Beneficial Use"?
- Issues to watch: Inverse condemnation for wildfires and flooding.
Here's another view of the above picture, taken from the audience perspective (thanks to Tony Della Pelle for sending the pic our way).
Also, here are materials which other speakers discussed:
- Restatement (SCOTUS) of Property: What Happened to Use in Murr v. Wisconsin? (our draft article with thoughts on Murr and the "three unities" test)
- Fla App: Highest And Best Use Doesn't Require Owner Have More Than "Conceptual Plans (the Sunny Isles Beach case)
- Idaho: You Aren't Special, Just Because You Had Your Property Taken
- Cal App: Increasing A Nonprofit's Losses May Result In A Business Goodwill Claim
Finally, as we mentioned above, this year we have record attendance. Thank you to all who are here in Charleston with us.