An opinion worth reading. In Galleon Bay Corp. v. Bd. of County Commissioners, No. 3D11-1296 (Dec. 5, 2012), the Florida District Court of Appeal (Third District), held that the trial court improperly applied the “investment-backed expectations” prong of the Penn Central factors, by not treating the parcels at issue separately from the plaintiff’s other
HAWICA: Kawaiahao Church Development Not Exempt From Archaeological Review
In Hall v. Dep’t of Land and Nat. Resources, No. 12-0000061 (Dec. 14, 2012), the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals held that a development proposed by the historic Kawaiahao Church in Honolulu is not exempt from historic preservation review, and the state should have required the preparation of an archaelogical inventory survey prior to
HAWSCT Rejects County’s Argument That Property Owner Must Change The Law To Ripen Takings Claim
That was quick. As we predicted (and urged), the Hawaii Supreme Court today without comment rejected the County of Maui’s application for a writ of certiorari, which asked the court to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals decision in in Leone v. County of Maui, No 29692 (June 22, 2012) (Supreme Court order
One More Top Side Amicus Brief In Koontz
We always like reading amicus briefs filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence because they tend to focus on the history of whatever issue they are addressing, and the brief they (along with the Atlantic Legal Foundation and the Reason Foundation) filed in in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No.
Ohio Supreme Court Finds Dep’t of Natural Resources In Contempt For Dragging Its Feet In Compensation
Well, this is unusual, althought it should not be.
In this short order, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held the state’s Department of Natural Resources in contempt for not moving fast enough to compensate property owners whose land had been flooded. (In California, that would be called “normal planning delay.”)
In
New Cert Petition: Private Purpose Pretext In Economic Development Takings
In the nearly eight years since the Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London, the Court has yet to provide any clarification about what it meant when it said that a taking will not survive public use analysis when the proffered justification is a pretext to private benefit. Despite massive
Professor Epstein’s Fed Society Podcast On Arkansas Game – Flooding As A Taking
Worth listening: a short (10 minute) podcast by Professor Richard Epstein, with his thoughts on Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (Dec. 4, 2012).
Friday Round-Up: Flood Takings, Pearl Harbor, Organic Farming
Here’s what we’re reading today:
- We know you probably read Professor Gideon Kanner’s blog daily, but in case you missed his thoughts about the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (Dec. 4, 2012), please read them here. Today’s must-read.
- Today is Pearl Harbor day,
They Really Are Moving Father’s Grave To Build
China again. And this time, the holdout is not going to die (what we fear happens to those who dare object there), but is already gone. According to this story (more photos inlcuded), “Developers bought a cemetery and paid villagers to relocate the remains of their loved ones. All except one. The grave has
What’s The Beef In California Oyster Dispute?
We’ve talked California raisins before, but the latest is about oysters. Specifically, an oyster farm in a Marin County National Seashore, the Drakes Bay Oyster Company.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar visited the place a couple of weeks ago to see if he would be willing to extend the farm’s existing license, which has been