Notice: This post is worth reading. There’s the possibility of a prize if you do. Read on.
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following with mild amusement, if only because the Court of Appeal decision seemed so ironic.
In Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manahattan Beach, No. B215788 (Jan.
On July 14, 2011, we filed this cert petition (also posted below), which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 242 P.3d 1136 (Haw. 2010). In that case, the Hawaii court upheld the taking of land on the Big
Is this a “sign?” The city of St. Louis thought so. The city’s building inspection department issued a citation to the folks who commissioned the painting on a residential duplex, telling them they needed a permit. So they asked the city for one.
Denied. The zoning code does not allow for such signs. It’s too
If you understand the title of this post, congratulations: you are a regulatory takings wonk.
The property owners have filed a cert petition asking the Supreme Court to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Alto Eldorado Partnership v. County of Santa Fe, 634 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2011). The Questions Presented explain the background
Today’s Ninth Circuit opinion in Vandevere v. Lloyd, No. 09-35957 (July 11, 2011), raises a couple of interesting questions having little to do with the merits of whether Alaska’s commercial fishing regulations worked a taking or a due process violation because they shortened the fishing season and limited the number of fish that can
Here’s how the California Court of Appeal, Third District began today’s opinion in a case involving the California Environmental Quality Act:
This is a case where CEQA worked. The City of Rocklin (the City) in 2007 approved a residential development project for an undeveloped area of the City known as Clover Valley. The approval culminated
Synchronicity. Serendipity. Yin and Yang. Sometimes things just seem to work out.
Exhibit A: No sooner do we post a case about when inverse condemnation cases are filed too late (see Federal Circuit On The Metaphysics Of Takings Claim Accrual), what comes across our desk? A case about when inverse
From Oregon Live comes the report that a Portland attorney who was fighting to keep his office building (a converted Victorian), from being taken, has prevailed.
After a years-long fight in which Randal Acker, a commercial litigation lawyer, vowed to “do eminent domain law for the next two years to save the house” if necessary
Here’s an interesting court of appeal decision about the intersection of technology and direct democracy from the epicenter of citizen lawmaking, California.
In Ni v. Slocum, No. A128721 (June 30, 2011), the court held that a voter using his smartphone to put his “electronic signature” on a petition does not qualify as “personally affixing”
Update: Civil Beat published a version of this post here.
We know lawyers are easy targets (we enjoy lawyer jokes as much as the next person, i.e., What’s the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer? A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the judge.). Still, as