Two unreported opinions arising out of cases from New Jersey. We won’t be reviewing them (they are not precedential after all), but you may want to check them out if you are interested in public use and redevelopment (case #1), or inverse condemnation by permit denial (case #2):
Not much new in Numont v. State of Florida, No. 04-13610 (11th Cir., July 2, 2010) (per curiam). There, property owners sued to enjoin a Monroe County (aka the Florida Keys) ordinance that prevents “vacation rentals.” The opinion makes short work of two issues.
First, the court disposed of the claim that the ordinance
What we’re reading today – not all of it property or land use law related:
Think property rights are a “conservative” issue? To challenge that notion, read Black Landowners Fight to Reclaim Georgia Home in today’s New York Times. It tells the story of African-American property owners whose homes were condemned years ago, who now may have a second chance:
In 1942, Harris Neck, a thriving community of black
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