Thank you to those who were able to join us live for today’s teleconference. Here are the links to the additional cases and other items I mentioned (or wanted to mention) in my session on Public Use and Pretext Update:
- Might Makes Blight In The New York Appellate Division – Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn v. Urban Dev. Corp., 2009 NY Slip Op 01395 (Feb. 26, 2009)
- Determining Eminent Domain Pretext In Serial Takings – County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 198 P.3d 615 (Haw. Dec. 24, 2008) (proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on remand)
- Book Review: Little Pink House by Robert S. Poliner, Connecticut Ombudsman for Property rights
- First Circuit: Williamson County Applies To Eminent Domain Challenges – Lichoulas v. City of Lowell, No. 08-1485 (1st Cir. Jan. 20, 2009)
- How To Prove A Substantive Due Process Zoning Case – Cine SK8, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 507 F.3d 778 (2d Cir. 2007)
- Williamson County, removal, and remand of regulatory takings case after municipality created wetlands – Yamagiwa v. City of Half Moon Bay, 523 F. Supp. 2d. 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2007)
- California Court of Appeal: No TKO Of Eminent Domain Challenge – Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City, No. D052584 (Jan. 22, 2009)
- Eminent Domain Use and Abuse: Kelo in Context (ABA 2007) (Dwight Merriam, Mary Massaron Ross, eds.)
The program examined new and important condemnation cases andtrends, and also reviewed eminent domain as a backdrop for land useregulation. Also on the faculty were Robert Freilich, MaryLynn Huett, and Edward Sullivan. Professor StevenEagle moderated. More here, including information about purchasing the CD recording.
If you have any questions or comments you weren’t able to ask or make during the teleconference, please drop me an email.