Our thanks to Dwight Merriam for letting us know about these two decisions.
- Gold v. Town of East Haddam, No. 18067 (Conn. Mar. 24, 2009) – On one hand, this is a fairly straightforward summary judgment case: are material facts disputed such that a trial is merited? On the other, it involves the question of whether the property taken pursuant to a referendum was to be used for a school or some other purpose (under Connecticut law, according to the opinion, a taking for anything but a school must be commenced within six months of the vote authorizing the taking, but a taking for a school purposes is subject to some other time limit). In reversing the court of appeals’ determination that there was a genuine dispute regarding the uses to which the property taken would be put, the Supreme Court held the language of the referendum itself demonstrated the property was taken for school purposes, and that affidavits submitted by the town showed a school purpose, and the plaintiffs did not draw those affidavits into question.
- Dudley v. Town of Prattsburgh, 2009 NY Slip Op. 50317U (S. Ct. Feb. 26, 2009) – From a New York state trial court comes a ruling in a case challenging resolutions of taking to to acquire easements the placement of an underground electrical system to support a wind farm. The landowners claimed the resolutions were invalid because one of the town supervisors had a conflict of interest, because he was the real estate agent for the wind farm, representing the farm in the purchase of its property. The court held that under the circumstances of the case, the supervisor’s involvement in the purchase of the property was not sufficient to void the results of the resolution of taking. See slip op. at 10-11.