Here
Carl Ronnie Daricek Living Trust v. Hancock County, No. 2009-IA-01515-SCT (May 13, 2010).
Final Briefs In In Hawaii Beach Taking Case: Is “Future” Accretion A Present Property Interest?
Here are the latest filings in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175 (cert. application filed Apr. 22, 2010). In that case, the property owners are asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to review the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of
Briefs And Live Blog Of June 1 New York Court Of Appeals Oral Argument In Kaur v. NY State Urban Dev Corp. (Columbia “Blight” Case)
On June 1, 2010, starting at 2:00 p.m. ET, the New York Court of Appeals will hear 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
Missouri Court Of Appeals: Good Faith Negotiation Statute Requires Appraisal Using “Generally Accepted Appraisal Practices”
After Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), many state and local governments adopted measures designed to limit exercises of the power of eminent domain. Some jurisdictions went for substantive limits. For example, Nebraska adopted a statute prohibiting takings that are “primarily” for economic development. Other jurisdictions took the procedural route
New Ninth Circuit Ripeness And Res Judicata Regulatory Takings Case
This just in: the Ninth Circuit has issued an opinion in Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara, No. 09-55315 (May 14, 2010).
Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. and Iceberg Holdings, L.L.C. (collectively “Adam Bros.”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their joint complaint. Adam Bros. sued the County of Santa Barbara and several of its employees (collectively “the county”) in federal court, alleging that the county had, through a false wetland delineation, temporarily taken its land without providing just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The district court granted the county’s motion to dismiss and concluded that Adam Bros.’s claim was not ripe because Adam Bros. failed to demonstrate that it had sought and was denied just compensation under state law. Because we conclude that Adam Bros.’s claim is barred by the application of res judicata, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
More to follow after a chance to digest the opinion.
Continue Reading New Ninth Circuit Ripeness And Res Judicata Regulatory Takings Case
Florida Court Of Appeal: State Must Pay When It Destroys Healthy Orange Trees
When the state purposely destroys healthy citrus trees as part of a program to address citrus canker, it must pay the owners of the trees just compensation.
In Dep’t of Agriculture & Consumer Services v. Borgoff, No. 4D08-4474 (May 12, 2010), the Florida District Court of Appeal (Fourth District) affirmed an $11 million class
Petition To Watch: Is A Littoral Owner Trespassing When The Shoreline Erodes?
SCOTUSblog has listed Sharp v. United States, No. 09-820 as a “petition to watch” for the Court’s conference today.
May 17, 2010 Update: cert. denied.
In that case, the property owners are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Milner, 583
Ely On “Stevens, Kagan and Property Rights”
Vanderbilt lawprof James Ely (if you haven’t read his book The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (1998), you really should) writes on the topic du jour, the nomination of SG Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court in Stevens, Kagan and property rights.
Most of the article focuses
Yale Law Journal: Eminent Domain Due Process
A new article worth reading: Eminent Domain Due Process, 119 Yale L. J. 1280 (2010) by D. Zachary Hudson. Here’s the abstract:
This Note analyzes the apparent disconnect between eminent domain doctrine and due process doctrine. Following Kelo, numerous states have reformed their eminent domain laws in an effort to ensure that the
Cal Ct App: You Knew The Property Was Damaged When You Bought It
In a partially-published* opinion in Ridgewater Associates, LLC v. Dublin San Ramon Services District, No. A124661 (Apr. 11, 2010), the California Court of Appeals (First District) held that a property owner did not muster sufficient proof to support its claim for inverse condemnation against a neighboring sewage treatment facility. Ridgewater claimed that