You’ve seen those shirts, the ones that have “Hollister” emblazoned on the front (“So Cal inspired clothing for Dudes and Bettys”). But here’s a case about the real Hollister (the town in Northern California), and a condemnation action directed at the Hollister Inn, a roadside hostelry near that town.
In Council of …
We sure wish we could have attended the Cato Institute’s recent Constitution Day program in Washington, D.C., but here’s the next best thing, a video of the presentations on Property Rights, with a review of the recent Sackett and PPL Montana decisions by the Supreme Court, and an update about the state of property rights.
The Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School has published its preview of Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the takings case set to be argued on October 3, 2012.
Petitioner, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (the “Commission”) sued Respondent, the United States, for…
Check out Evans v. United States, No. 2010-1303 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 17, 2012), a rails-to-trails case in which the Federal Circuit “confess[ed] to some puzzlement over exactly what all this sturm und drang is about.” Slip op. at 9 (footnote omitted). The court resolved a procedural issue in favor of property owners (represented by…
In Moore v. City of Middletown, No 2012-1363 (Aug. 30, 2012), the Ohio Supreme Court held that a property owner did not have standing to bring a regulatory takings claim when a “foreign municipality” (the neighboring city) rezoned an adjacent parcel, because the municipality did not have jurisdiction to exercise eminent domain over his…
Here’s a few reports worth reading:
…
They say as you get older, you begin to forget birthdays (I know it’s true for me).
So it should not have been a surprise that August 31 passed without fanfare, and only today did I recall that six years ago I posted the first of my missives on this blog.
In law blog …
The speed of the internet: we were preparing a post on Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., No. B-230470 (Aug. 30, 2012), when the good folks over at Murphy & Evertz beat us to it. In a post entitled Pacific Bell Telephone Company v. Southern California Edison: Spiderman And …
Thanks to Municipal Minute for pointing out a new blog that should be of interest to our readers. Our friend and colleague Dwight Merriam and his firm are publishing RLUIPA Defense a “one-stop comprehensive site stocked with cases, trial materials, briefs and scholarly articles all about avoiding and defending against claims taken under the Religious…
It’s the right of homeless folks in L.A.’s “Skid Row” area to not have their personal belongings seized if they leave them unattended for a while, but we will take what we can get.
In Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, No.11-56253 (Sep. 5, 2012), the Ninth Circuit held:
We conclude that the Fourth…
