Today is the first 90 minutes of the epic three-day appellate arguments in the “Obamacare” Supreme Court cases. No doubt, coverage of the arguments will suck all the air out of the punditry room, and leave little space for discussion of anything else.
As it should be. Whatever the outcome, these arguments are going to
In case you missed attending in person back in January, the annual eminent domain law conference (ALI-ABA’s Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation) is now available on CD, mp3, and DVD here.
I was on the faculty, and along with Professor David Callies presented a session on The Role of Hawaii’s Unique Property
Here’s the latest chapter in the Skyland Shopping Center saga that has given us Franco v. National Capital Revitalization Comm’n, 930 A.2d 160 (D.C. 2007) and several other reported opinions (DeSilva v. District of Columbia, No. 10-CV-1069 (Feb. 24, 2011); Rumber v. District of Columbia, 487 F.3d 941 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
Here’s what folks are saying about yesterday’s 9-0 Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA, No. 10-1062 (Mar. 21, 2012):
Today’s commentary is by our colleage Thor Hearne, who regularly represents property owners in the Court of Federal Claims, the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court. He recently joined us on the faculty of the ALI-ABA eminent domain program in San Diego, and spoke at the 2011 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference in Beijing.
Here is the Reply Brief in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (filed Mar. 20, 2012), the case in which a Manhattan property owner is challenging New York’s rent control law as unconstitutional:
Respondents confuse the issues with their scattershot assertions that rent stabilization concerns merely “landlord tenant relations,” “economic regulation,” “price controls” and “economic
Update 2: more commentary here.
Update 1: Two quotes worth noting:
“Scalia joked in summarizing the decision from the bench that the Sacketts were surprised by the EPA decision that their land contained navigable waters of the United States ‘having never seen a ship or other vessel cross their yard.”” Oh Justice Scalia: you
Court-appointed appraisers awarded $7.5 million for the taking of property once used as a shopping mall, but being used as an office park at the time of the taking. The property owner challenged the award, and at trial sought to exclude tax appeal documents from two years earlier, in which it estimated the value of
On Thursday, we attended oral arguments in the Hawaii Supreme Court in a case that should be of particular interest to all you appellate procedure wonks.
A few days before expiration of the filing date for the notice of appeal, the parties stipulated to a two week extension of time. The trial court approved and
The city takes property for a bike trail. It deposited estimated compensation in court, and sought and obtained immediate possession. The owner disputed whether the city had the power to take his land, but the trial court rejected these arguments. The owner filed an interlocutory appeal on the public use and necessity issues. The city