Water is aprecious resource said to be held in the “public trust.” The Hawaii Constitution provides that “theState has an obligation to protect, control and regulate the use of Hawaii’swater resources for the benefit of its people.” To this end, the State evaluates andregulates the use of these resources through its Commission of Water ResourceManagement.
Ohio: Federal Law Does Not Preempt City’s Condemnation
Here’s a short one from the Ohio Supreme Court. In City of Girard v. Youngstown Belt Railway Co., No. 2012 Ohio 5370 (Nov. 21, 2012), the court held:
In this case, we are called upon to determine the extent to which the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (“ICCTA”), 49 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.
Guest Post:
Our colleague Mark M. Murakami was able to attend a lecture on regulatory takings at the University of Hawaii law school last week. Mark usually blogs at hawaiioceanlaw, but we convinced him to write up a guest post on his observations about the presentation.
————————————————————————————-
Title
Last week, I attended the 2012 Distinguished GiffordLectureship
LA Times On The Raisin Takings Case
More on Horne v. U.S.D.A., No. 12-123 (cert. granted Nov. 20, 2012) from the Los Angeles Times: Supreme Court to hear California raisin growers’ case.
Wow, That’s A Lot Of Just Compensation
Check out this story, Excelaron filed $6.24 billion lawsuit against SLO county, and the filing below.
$6.24 billion? According to the story, “[c]ounty Supervisor Adam Hill said the amount being sought makes this one of the largest, if not the largest lawsuit in San Luis Obispo County’s history.”
We’d certainly hope so.
When All You Have Is A Hammer, Everything Looks Like A Nail House
This photo of a “nail house” in Wenling, People’s Republic of China is making the rounds on the internet. The reports (see also here for higher res photos) say that the homeowners refused to take the offers to sell, so the developer built the road around their house. “They are called “nail houses” because the
Petitioner’s Brief In Koontz: No Bargaining Around The Takings Clause
Here’s the property owner’s merits brief in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012).
This case presents two questions:
- Whether the government violates the Takings Clause when it refuses to issue a land-use permit on the sole basis that the permit applicant did not accede to
La App:
text
case that originated with a taking in 1987 by the DOT. In State of Louisiana, et al v. Monteleone, et al, the Court of Appeals affirmed an award of $1,631,000.50 ($214,534.14 as just compensation for the taking + $1,416,466.40 in severance damages) + $1,584,442.54 in interest + $173,030.00 and legal
Three Takings Cases This Term – What’s The Deal?
As you know, yesterday the Supreme Court granted cert in Horne v. U.S.D.A., No. 12-123 (cert. granted Nov. 20, 2012), the third takings claim this season. As this article asked, what, if anything, is going on? Is it just “serendipity” or a “return to the norm” as two lawprofs quoted in the article
SCOTUS Grants Cert In California Raisins Takings Case
It looks like our crystal balls are working.
Wait, that didn’t come out the way we quite intended, so let’s rephrase. Recently, we and others suggested paying attention to the property rights cases on the Supreme Court’s cert docket, paying particular attention to a case out of the Ninth Circuit, Horne v. United States