What owners of rent-controlled mobile home parks say to courts: “Unfair! Due Process! Rate-of-Return! Takings! Equal Protection!”
What courts hear: “blah blah DENIED blah blah blah DISMISSED blah blah blah AFFIRMED blah blah blah blah…”
Latest example: Besaro Mobile Home Park, LLC v. City of Fremont, No. A130753 (Mar. 1, 2012).
In Miller v. FW Commercial Properties, LLC, No. 105066 (Mar. 9, 2012), the Kansas Supreme Court held that a lawyer who represents a party in a condemnation case is not entitled to recapture his or her legal fees from another party’s condemnation award because the lawyer is not a “party in interest” in the
There’s a feature story in today’s Honolulu Star-Advertiser, “Red tape ties up groups’ fishpond restorations,” about a local caretaker group’s frustration with “government rules” they claim are thwarting their efforts to fix up a traditional littoral fishpond.
For those of you not familiar with these centuries-old aquacultural structures designed to catch
The Penn Central test — reaffirmed in Lingle as the regulatory takings “benchmark” in all but a few cases — is one of those “factor” tests in which the trier of fact is supposed to examine three things: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the property; (2) the interference with investment-backed expectations, and
Here’s the state’s BIO in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s rent control ordinance as a due process violation and as a taking. We posted the cert petition and the three amicus briefs in support here.
Both respondents waived their rights to file
Here are the other two amicus briefs in support of the petitioner in River Center LLC v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of New York, No. 11-922 (cert. petition filed Jan. 23, 2012).
That’s the case in which a Manhattan property owner and developer is challenging the compensation awarded by New York courts for
Here’s the BIO in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s rent control ordinance as a due process violation and as a taking. Although the respondents waived their right to respond, the Court requested they file an opposition.
We posted the cert petition and the
Here’s today’s second decision about attorneys fees and costs, this time in an inverse condemnation claim out of the Federal Circuit, Bywaters v. United States, No. 2011-1032 (Mar. 1, 2012).
In a class action rails-to-trails takings case under the Little Tucker Act (less than $10,000 per claim, district court venue), the trial court awarded
Here’s the first of two cases about the recovery of attorneys fees in takings cases.
The first is People ex rel. Dep’t of Transportation v. Superior Court, No. C069391 (Mar. 1, 2012), from the California Court of Appeal, about recovery of fees in eminent domain proceedings.
After a stipulated judgment days before the trial
The Stanford Law Review has been doing a good job lately of talking takings. Last week, it published a note about judicial takings and the Stop the Beach Renourishment case. Now comes the Law Review’s online edition with a new essay by Professor Richard Epstein, “Physical and Regulatory Takings: One Distinction Too Many,”