A reminder: on Tuesday, June 1, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. ET, we will be live blogging the oral arguments in Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp.
In that case, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (First Department) struck down the attempted taking of land north of Columbia University in New York…
In Smith v. Ark. Midstream Gas Servs, No 09-1186 (May 27, 2010), the Arkansas Supreme Court concluded that a taking for a natural gas pipeline by a private, for-profit utility company was not a violation of the state constitution’s public use clause.
Arkansas law delegates the power of eminent domain to certain pipeline companies…
Last week, we
Howard v. County of San Diego, No. D055419 (May 26, 2010).
Here’s a case, issued yesterday by a California Court of Appeal, that is not directly about the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes to remedy “blight,” but is nonetheless worth reviewing since it shows how redevelopment supposedly “pays for itself” (in the words of a court) through tax increment financing:
Under the [California Redevelopment…
Here’s the latest development in the reconsideration process in the Turtle Bay/Kuilima EIS case, Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 28602 (Apr. 8, 2010).
As we noted earlier, Kuilima Resort Company filed a motion asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to reconsider or clarify its opinion in the case.
According to the Daily Reporter (Wisconsin), that is. If it’s on the internet, it must be true, right?
Activists want U.S. Supreme Court to rule on eminent domain case summarizes the background in City of Milwaukee Post No. 2874 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Milwaukee…
Appellate courts issue opinions and orders to decide cases. The opinions and orders in many cases get “published,” meaning that they end up in the bound reporters (the U.S., Federal, Federal Supplement, the official state reports, and in West’s Regional Reports, for example) and become precedential and set forth a rule of law governing future…
A couple of days ago, we posted “Final Briefs In Hawaii Beach Takings Case: Is ‘Future’ Accretion A Present Property Interest?” with what we thought was a complete set of the merits and amicus briefs filed in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175 (cert. application filed Apr.
The first line of this opinion issued today by the Georgia Supreme Court got us all excited:
The trial court dismissed this condemnation case for lack of prosecution pursuant to OCGA § 9-2-60 (b).
Windsor f/k/a Bank v. City of Atlanta, No. S10A0102 (May 17, 2010). Was it a case where a condemnor sat…
here
Texas v. Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc., No. 03-09-00598-DV (May 13, 2010),
