Here's what we're reading this Thursday:
- Brott v. United States, No. 17-712. This one was disappointing, but, I suppose, not surprising given that it would have upset current practice, no matter how unconstitutional that practice is. This is the case which challenged the takings-claims-against-the-feds-over-$10k-must-go-to-the-CFC-with-no-jury scheme. We did a brief in support.
- Sammons v. United States, No. 17-795. The other case raising the same issue. We joined a brief in that case.
- Starr International, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-540. Even audacious takings lawsuits for billions of dollars in just comp filed by uberlawyers (and cert petitions with no less that two uberlawyers) can't get around the standing requirements, as we wrote here. More from Reuters: "Supreme Court rejects AIG ex-CEO Greenberg's bailout challenge."
California Wildfires and Inverse Condemnation
- California utilities want customers to help pay wildfire damages. Will politicians oblige? (Cal Matters)
- PG&E Will Kill Power When Wildfire Risk Is High (Courthouse News Service)
- Fingers point at PG&E in Wine Country fires, though causes remain unknown (Napa Valley Register)
- Stop treating wildfires like unexpected natural disasters (The Hill)
- California’s historic wildfire season puts financial squeeze on the state’s utilities (Think Progress)
- Moody’s Cites Wildfires, Dividend Cut in Downgrading PG&E (NGI's Daily Gas Price Index)
Can One Colorado City Take Property in Another City?
- Hurricane Harvey FEMA Claims vs. Inverse Condemnation Claims: Do You Know Your Recovery Rights? (Part III) (Merlin Law Group)
- Oil company blames humans for warming but denies guilt (E&E News)
- Wisconsin Justices Hear Billboard Property-Rights Case (Courthouse News Service)