“Courts are required to be more than ‘rubber stamps’ in determining whether a taking furthers a public use.”
In a must-read opinion for eminent domain practitioners, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court invalidated an attempted taking on public use grounds.
More on the US Supreme Court’s opinion (400kb pdf) in Wilkie v. Robbins (No. 06-219, June 25, 2007) (also posted here in HTML), a decision that unfortunately has not garnered much attention, despite the fact that its this year’s version Kelo. The following items have been posted so far:
Kauai’s newspaper, The Garden Island, has posted a story “Legal funds approved for Ohana Kauai battle.” The appeal, summarized in the story, was argued in February 2007, and is awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
Ohana Kauai, a citizens group, helped put thetax relief measure on the November 2004
West Hawaii Today has posted a story on an ongoing eminent domain case:
Counsel for the developer William Meheula Jr. saidinverse condemnation can only be proven if the defendants admit thatthe government is taking possession of the private property for apublic purpose. The Coupe case claims the lack of public purpose fortaking the 3-acre strip
Does a landowner challenging the public use of a taking of property need to utilize state compensation procedures before seeking relief in federal court? In Rumber v. District of Columbia (No. 06-7004, D.C. Cir. May 25, 2007), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia joined the majority of federal circuits and held
The Missouri Supreme Court, in in Mint Properties v. Centene Plaza Redev. Corp. (SC88487, Jun. 12, 2007), clarified that state’s meaning of the term “blight” as a justification for taking property by eminent domain:
(1) The evidence presented was insufficient to showthe social liability necessary to support a finding of blight. Section353.020 defines “blighted area”
I’ve finally had a chance to sit down and read the recent Hawaii Supreme Court opinion in Citizens Against Reckless Development v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the City and County of Honolulu (No. 27264, May 31, 2007), a case I posted about here. I won’t detail the complex procedural history of the case
In MiPro Homes, LLC v. Mount Laurel Township (No. 06-1345) (docket listing here), the US Supreme Court is being asked to consider the following question:
Whether the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits a municipality from taking private property for “public use” when the municipality’s public use determination is ad
In “The downside of paradise,” the San Francisco Chronicle’s travel editor writes:
News flash: There are problems in Paradise.
Actually, I don’t believe that any place is heaven on earth — though I’ve been to my fair share of purgatories, or worse — but some readers are disappointed that I don’t always highlight