The New York Times editorial page has weighed in on Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the takings case argued earlier this week in the U.S. Supreme Court.
And, no surprise, in When Flooding Is Not a Taking, the great beneficiary of eminent domain…
Here’s the transcript of Wednesday’s argument in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012).
BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): we’re predicting the property owner win with a minimum six-Justice majority (perhaps more), with a narrowly drawn opinion vacating the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that temporary…
This just in: our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues have informed us that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review another takings case.
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the government can be held liable for a taking when it refuses to issue a land-use permit on the sole basis that the permit applicant did…
Here’s the transcript of Wednesday’s argument in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012).
BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): we’re predicting the property owner win with a minimum six-Justice majority (perhaps more), with a narrowly drawn opinion vacating the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that temporary…
Later today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), to review the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that flooding caused by the Corps of Engineers was only temporary, and even thought it destroyed trees owned by Arkansas, it was not…
