Yet another year has comeand gone — our third at this blog, — so it’s time to start off ourannual summary of the past year’s highlights (or lowlights, dependingon your point of view) in land use law and other topics covered oninversecondemnation.com.
It was mostly a year of incrementaldoctrinal shifts, with a couple of sea
You own a home built in 2002. A couple of years later, the county redevelopment authority decides that your home, and the properties your neighbors own, would together make a grand site for an industrial park. Your properties are “shovel-ready” (the authority’s term, not mine) and primed for industrial development.
So it decides your home
Section 30010 of California’s Public Resource Code provides that the California Coastal Commission may grant a development permit that otherwise could not be granted in order to avoid a taking:
The Legislature hereby finds and declares that this division is not intended, and shall not be construed as authorizing the commission, port governing body, or
In a brief order available here, the Hawaii Supreme Court has rejected an application for writ of certiorari, declining to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ decision in Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd., 119 Haw. 163, 194 P.3d 1126 (2008).
In that opinion, the ICA held that private citizens do not have standing
There have now been a total of five briefs amicus curiae filed supporting the petition for writ of certiorari in Charles A. Pratt Construction Co. v. California Coastal Commission, No. 08-668 (cert. petition filed Nov. 18, 2008) (SCOTUS docket report here).
We wrote here about the California Court of Appeal’s decision, reported at 76
Here is the brief amici curiae of the National Association of Home Builders, California Building Industry Association, Building Industry Association Legal Defense Foundation, and Home Builders Association of Northern California urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Charles A. Pratt Const. Co. v. California Coastal Comm’n, 76
It’s not often that you see an opinion piece previewing an attorney’s arguments in a pending case being published before his or her brief has been filed. Most commonly, if counsel publishes in the op-ed pages about a case, it is afterthe brief has been filed or after the court has rendered adecision. Thus, the
The New York Times posts a story, “House Stands as Legacy to Fight Against Developers,” about one woman’s refusal to sell her modest Seattle, Washington area home to a redeveloper, even when offered $1 million. If a picture is worth a thousand words…
While the case is not like Kelo — or the
When the case is captioned “Jerry McGuire v. United States,” and involves an inverse condemnation claim seeking compensation from the government, how could anyone resist making a reference to Jerry Maguire, the 1996 Cameron Crowe film that added “show me the money” to the lexicon? I couldn’t, nor, apparently, could
In a major decision regarding eminent domain, whether the government must pay damages when its attempts to condemn property fail, and the standards applicable to challenging the government’s claim that a taking is for public use, the Hawaii Supreme Court today issued an opinion in County of Hawaii v. Richards, No. 28882, the consolidated