Here are items we’re reading today, in no particular order:
Here’s the latest development in the ongoing life imitating art saga of the the use of eminent domain to take property in St. Johannes Cemetery for the expansion of O’Hare airport.
Appellate court hears arguments in O’Hare cemetery case is a short news report about last week’s oral argument in the appeal by the
Today, we bring you guest commentary on Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-1151 (June 17, 2010), last week’s Supreme Court decision on judicial takings and ownership of replenished beaches.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Beach Decision Draws No New Line in Sand
But high court launches debate about topic of judicial
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court plurality opinion in the long-anticipated Second Amendment case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521
In the late 19th century, the Court began to consider whether the Due Process Clause prohibits the States from infringing rights set out in the Bill of Rights. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516
Our colleague Dwight Merriam reminds us that last year, a case related to a decision we posted about a couple of days ago was awarded a ZiPLeR.
Now in its thirteenth year, the award is presented by the Zoning and Planning Law Report for the “strangest, or at least more dramatic” land use cases each
In Muscarello v. Ogle County Board of Commissioners, No. 08-2464 (June 24, 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed as unripe a claim the county’s grant of a special use permit to a neighboring property owner allowing it to construct windmills on its land was a taking.
Ogle County granted Baileyville Wind Farms a
Most municipal zoning codes prohibit the operation of a “business” in a residential zone. Does this mean you can’t have a “home office” or take work-related calls at home? In most circumstances, doing so does not run afoul of the zoning code if the primary use of the home remains a dwelling house, and the
Here’s a round-up of reports and analysis of yesterday’s opinion by the New York Court of Appeals in the “Columbia U. blight” case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125:
More on today’s opinion in the “Columbia U. blight” case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125.
As we noted in our critique of the Atlantic Yards case (Goldstein), New York judges apparently are too “frightened and confused” by allegations that property is not truly “substandard or unsanitary,” so
The New York Court of Appeals today reversed the Columbia “blight” case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125 (June 24, 2010). The unanimous opinion came swiftly (oral arguments were just under a month ago), suggesting it was not a close call for the court. Here’s the Appellate Division’s opinion