In the op-ed piece “Eminently reasonable,” Brooklyn lawprof David Reiss writes that “using the power of eminent domain to restructure underwater mortgages is constitutional, beneficial and administratively feasible.”
Local governments across the country are considering an innovative use of eminent domain. They propose to condemn underwater mortgages (those that exceed the fair-market value…
Here’s the property owner/petitioner’s Reply Brief in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the Supreme Court takings case scheduled to be argued on October 3, 2012.
The Federal Circuit held that flooding caused by the Corps was only temporary that destroyed G&F’s trees did not…
You’ve seen those shirts, the ones that have “Hollister” emblazoned on the front (“So Cal inspired clothing for Dudes and Bettys”). But here’s a case about the real Hollister (the town in Northern California), and a condemnation action directed at the Hollister Inn, a roadside hostelry near that town.
In Council of …
We sure wish we could have attended the Cato Institute’s recent Constitution Day program in Washington, D.C., but here’s the next best thing, a video of the presentations on Property Rights, with a review of the recent Sackett and PPL Montana decisions by the Supreme Court, and an update about the state of property rights.
The Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School has published its preview of Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the takings case set to be argued on October 3, 2012.
Petitioner, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (the “Commission”) sued Respondent, the United States, for…
Check out Evans v. United States, No. 2010-1303 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 17, 2012), a rails-to-trails case in which the Federal Circuit “confess[ed] to some puzzlement over exactly what all this sturm und drang is about.” Slip op. at 9 (footnote omitted). The court resolved a procedural issue in favor of property owners (represented by…
In Moore v. City of Middletown, No 2012-1363 (Aug. 30, 2012), the Ohio Supreme Court held that a property owner did not have standing to bring a regulatory takings claim when a “foreign municipality” (the neighboring city) rezoned an adjacent parcel, because the municipality did not have jurisdiction to exercise eminent domain over his…
Here’s a few reports worth reading:
…
They say as you get older, you begin to forget birthdays (I know it’s true for me).
So it should not have been a surprise that August 31 passed without fanfare, and only today did I recall that six years ago I posted the first of my missives on this blog.
In law blog …
The speed of the internet: we were preparing a post on Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., No. B-230470 (Aug. 30, 2012), when the good folks over at Murphy & Evertz beat us to it. In a post entitled Pacific Bell Telephone Company v. Southern California Edison: Spiderman And …
