Appropos of absolutely nothing that are the usual subjects of this blog is this decision and order, issued yesterday by the California Commission on Judicial Performance.
It’s totally off-topic, but a must-read.
It’s about what happened when a San Diego Superior Court judge decided to use the courtroom as a venue to audition
It’s pretty easy to blog about cases in which your side prevails, but not so easy when you don’t. This post is one of the latter instances. In County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, No. 29887 (Nov. 10, 2010), a unanimous court in an opinon authored by Justice Acoba
We use “takings,” “Takings Clause” and “Fifth Amendment rights” as a convenient shorthand for the right of property owners to object or obtain compensation when a government act has so interefered with their rights that it might as well have exercised eminent domain. Every now and then, we need a reminder that the Takings Clause
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, No. 09-846 (cert. granted Apr. 19, 2010), the case involving the scope of the Court of Federal Claims’ subject matter jurisdiction. The transcript of the argument is posted here, and in a new feature, the Court has
Just in: the Texas Supreme Court has issued an opinion in Severance v. Patterson, No. 09-0378 (Nov. 5, 2010). In that case, the court ruled on “whether private beachfront properties on Galveston Island’s West Beach are impressed with a right of public use under Texas law without proof of an easement” when an avulsive
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, 122 Haw. 34, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009). That’s the case in which the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals concluded that ownership of beachfront property includes only a partial right to accreted land.
The ICA
Professor Gideon Kanner has a recurring feature on his eminent domain law blog Gideon’s Trumpet called “Lowball Watch” in which he points out cases in which the condemnor’s offer is below — way below— the eventual compensation awarded to a property owner.
Thus, we’re looking forward to his thoughts on the latest
Remember that now-iconic scene in The Fugitive, where Harrison Ford’s character has turned the tables on Tommy Lee Jones, and while holding Jones at gunpoint proclaims, “I didn’t kill my wife!”
Jones’ response — “I don’t care!“ — could just as easily apply to regulatory takings law, especially where a property owner
The Institute for Justice, the Cato Institute, and the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty have weighed in on Tuck-It-Away, Inc. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., No. 10-402 (cert. petition filed Sep. 21, 2010), the case in which upper Manhattan property owners have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of