The city has filed its Brief in Opposition in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 10-1125.
That’s the case in which the owners of a mobile home park asserted the city’s mobile home rent control ordinance which the city adopted in 2002, is a taking under the three factor ad hoc test in Penn
In CRV Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 626 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the court that hears appeals in regulatory taking and inverse condemnation cases against the federal government) held the EPA’s installation of a log boom on a navigable waterway in California’s central valley
Today, on behalf of the Manufactured Housing Institute, we filed this amicus brief (also available below) in the U.S. Supreme Court in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 10-1125 (petition for cert. filed Mar. 11, 2011). In that case, California mobile home park owners are asking the Court to review the decision of
In City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, No. B225083 (Apr. 12, 2011), the California Court of Appeal (2d District) held that the trial court erroneously entered summary judgment and awarded a property owner damages under an inverse condemnation theory against the city for inequitable precondemnation activities (aka “condemnation blight”). The owner showed that
In CCA Associates v. United States, No. 97-334C (Jan. 29, 2010), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that two federal statutes worked a taking under the three-part Penn Central test because it abrogated the rights of the owner of a Louisiana apartment building to prepay its way out of providing low income housing.
Today’s post by our colleague Rebecca Copeland on her Record on Appeal blog, The Great Font Debate, got us to thinking. Inspired by an Above the Law post that argues that “Times New Roman = I don’t care,” Rebecca writes about the various recommended typefaces for use in briefs. Also, we are in the
Here’s Bettendorf v. St. Croix County, No. 10-1359 (Jan. 20, 2011) a 2-1 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, another regulatory takings opinion we’ve been meaning to post for a while. The case involves a property owner’s claim that the county’s changing the zoning on his land from commercial
We hesitated to post this opinion since it is way off-topic for the usual subjects of this blog, and the subject matter is something that has a tendency to flush out the extreme elements. But what the heck — it’s an interesting case, whichever side of this you might be on.
Besides, it’s a great
We’ve had the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Henry v. Jefferson County Comm’n, No. 09-1546 (Mar. 3, 2011) near the top of our to-read list for a while, because it is a regulatory takings case. But after finally reading it, realized that the opinion is a must read for
Here’s what we’re reading today: