Most of the buzz these days about eminent domain is about the “public use” side of the equation — whether a condemor can take property, and the legitimacy of its professed reasons for doing so. Today, however, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the other side, which makes up a vast majority of eminent domain
Minnesota Supreme Court Hearing Eminent Domain Delegation Appeal
The Minnesota Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Company of Minnesota. The case asks from where a redevelopment authority derives its eminent domain power. We digested the court of appeals’ decision here.
Update: a report on the argument is posted here.
Here’s the summary of
Balkanizing The Beach: The Practical Consequences Of Maunaula Bay Beach Ohana 28
This post deals with the practical impacts of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii,No. 28175 (Dec. 30, 2009). [Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting the property owners,available here.]
First, some background for those who have not been following our recent
Hawaii Court Of Appeals: Legislative Grab Of The Right To Beachfront Accretion Is Not A Taking
Can the legislature adopt a law mandating that from here forward, upon an owner’s death, all of her property escheats to the State? Yes, according to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. Because the property is not “vested” in future heirs and “may never materialize,” the State is free to take it.
That’s the basic