Here’s an unusual takings case for you, and a decision that is worth reading, if only for its detail about wartime takings and clandestine contracts with the government. Besides, any court opinion that references “Maxwell’s Smart’s shoe phone” earns a spot on the to-read list, no?
In Doe v. United States, No.
Readers: are you planning on attending tomorrow’s eminent domain conference at Fordham Law? Details here.
The agenda and faculty look very good. Speakers include Associate Justice James Catterson (N.Y. Appellate Division) (who wrote recently, “Unfortunately for the rights of the citizens affected by the proposed condemnation, the recent rulings of the Court of
There’s still time to register to attend either of the upcoming two courses of study, Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation, and the sixth annual presentation of the basic-level Condemnation 101: Making the Complex Simple in Eminent Domain, both at the Hyatt Regency in Coral Gables (Miami), Florida. Both courses also are offered via
George Mason U. lawprof Steven J. Eagle is familiar to regular readers of this blog for authoring the seminal treatise Regulatory Takings, now in its fourth edition. Talk takings and you will invariably be dealing with his scholarship.
Here’s the latest: Professor Eagle has recently posted a new paper, “Urban Revitalization and Eminent
More: Rick Rayl posts his thoughts on the case: “My Stipulated Eminent Domain Judgment Went Awry, and You’re Telling Me I Can’t Appeal.”
* * * *
When is a final judgment in a condemnation case not appealable? When the appellant agreed that the trial cout’s order resolved “all claims and issues” in
On Friday, February 18, 2011 from noon to 1:00 p.m., my Damon Key colleague Greg Kugle will be speaking to the Hawaii State Bar Association’s Real Property and Financial Services Section on Shoreline Issues. Greg chairs our firm’s real estate and construction law practice group, and has been representing property owners on shorelines issues across
As we noted here (when we posted our article), the latest issue of the Vermont Law Review deals with the U.S. Supreme Court’s “judicial takings” case, Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, 130 S.Ct. 2592 (June 17, 2010).
In eight essays, the authors of several of the many amicus
For anyone not watching the game, here’s your Sunday fix of items that do not involve football:
The last chapter in the Ninth Circuit’s rent control saga has not been written. In Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 06-56306 (Dec. 22, 2010), a sharply divided en banc Ninth Circuit concluded that Goleta’s mobile home rent control ordinance was not a taking under the three-factor regulatory taking test of Penn Central Transportation
In a case with “a lengthy procedural history spanning the past three decades and involving litigation in various federal courts,” in Innovair Aviation Ltd. v. United States, No. 2010-5025 (Jan. 25, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Court of Federal Claims had no subject matter jurisdiction