An Alaska borough has sought Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit’s determination in Fairbanks North Star Borough v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 543 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2008) (a decision we analyzed here). The cert petition is posted here (No. 08-1052).
The Ninth Circuit held a property owner has
In Building Industry Ass’n of Central California v. City of Patterson, No. F054785 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2009), the California District Court of Appeal held that the city could not increase an in-lieu affordable housing exaction from $734 to $21,000 per house, because it failed to show the increase was attributable to the
The Cato Institute has filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioner in Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Giannoulias, No. 08-945 (cert. petition filed Jan. 21, 2009). In that case, the Illinois Supreme Court held (896N.E.2d 277 (Ill. 2008) that a regulation which imposes a 3%”surcharge” on Illinois casinos with gross receipts over $200
In Lichoulas v. City of Lowell, No. 08-1485, 08-2023 (1st Cir., Jan. 30, 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals declined to rule on a property owner’s objection to a taking for redevelopment, holding that public use challenges belong in state court. Interestingly, the court cited Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of
[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 —