[This review was originally published in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on September 20, 2009]
You remember that line in the Stevie Wonder classic — “For once I can say this is mine, you can’t take it“?
It turns out they can.
In 2005 in Kelo v. New London, the U.S. Supreme Court held
Certain addresses — real and fictitious — are instantly recognizable: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC and 221B Baker Street, London for example.
8 East Street, New London, Connecticut, however, isn’t an address that most people recognize.
is the former address of the “little pink house” which is the subject of Jeff Benedict’s Little
Articles and books
Takings, Eminent Domain, and Land Use: Sublimating Municipal Home Rule and Separation of Powers in Knick v. Township of Scott, 47 Fordham Urb. L.J. 509 (2020)
Takings and Land Use: Restatement (SCOTUS) of Property: What Happened to Use in Murr v. Wisconsin? 87 UMKC L. Rev. 891 (2019) Takings:
Property and
Some interesting items have crossed my desk on Friday and Saturday:
Your first reaction to this post’s title may be “well, duh!”
But wait, there’s more.
In Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Giannoulias, 896 N.E.2d 277 (Ill., June 5, 2008),the Illinois Supreme Court held that a regulation that imposes a 3%”surcharge” on Illinois casinos with gross receipts over $200 million per year, and then gives
At first, it was a bit odd to see Washington, D.C. attorney Kannon Shanmugam, counsel for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in the “ceded lands” case immediately concede in oral argument that the U.S. Supreme Court should rule against OHA — and hold the Apology Resolution was simply a symbolic statement of regret —
A recent book of interest to condemnation lawyers, Current Condemnation Law: Takings, Compensation & Benefits (2d ed.).
The book is co-edited by my Owner’s Counsel of America colleague Alan T. Ackerman. (He also has a blog about eminent domain issues.)
From the blurb:
Condemnation of property is an especially topical subject after the U.S.
This continues our summary of today’s oral arguments in the “ceded lands” case. The summary of the state’s argument is posted here, the summary of OHA’s argument is posted here, and the transcript is posted here.
What Issues Are Presented?
Assistant to the Solicitor General William Jay argued for the Obama
This continues our summary of today’s oral arguments in the “ceded lands” case. The summary of the state’s argument is posted here, and the transcript is posted here.
Washington, D.C. attorney Kannon Shanmugam argued for OHA. He began by asserting that the issue in the case should be very narrowly drawn: whether
The transcript of today’s oral arguments in the “ceded lands” case is posted here.
Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett argued for the State. He began by asserting that the Apology Resolution did not alter the state’s right to transfer the lands, and that it was, “as its sponsor said at the time, a simple