Remember that “audacious” case filed in the Court of Federal Claims by überlawyer David Boies on behalf of Starr International seeking $35 billion in just compensation for the federal takeover of AIG?
Well, it’s moving along, and apparently is in discovery (every lawyer’s favorite part of the case). Boies sought the deposition testimony
Here’s what we’re reading today:
Update: Here’s more from the San Francisco Chronicle. As you read this and other stories on the issue, this begins to take on an “occupy” tone and a let’s-stick-it-to-the greedy-lenders flavor. Not a good sign for a considered use of eminent domain.
————————————————————–
Like a visiting relative, the proposal to
What’s this, a federal court actually allowing a federal Fifth Amendment claim to be litigated in federal court? Why that’s as rare as hen’s teeth, although it shouldn’t be.
That’s the ruling of the Fourth Circuit in Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head, No. 12-1538 (July 25, 2013), which reversed the district
Did you know that in 2002, the voters of Florida adopted a “pregnant pig” amendment to the state’s constitution? Well, neither did we. The amendment, effective in 2008, makes it unlawful for “any person to confine a pig during pregnancy in an enclosure, or to tether a pig during pregnancy, on a firm in
Here’s one for your civil procedure mavens. In TrinCo Investment Co. v. United States, No. 2012-5130 (July 18, 2013), the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for failure to state a claim of two California property owners’ takings lawsuit.
The case involved the federal government’s response to the “Iron Complex” fires
Here’s the amicus brief of Atlantic Legal Foundation which urges the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. 0.073 Acres of Land, 705 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2013).
That’s the case in which the Fifth Circuit held that the association’s right to collect maintenance fees, recognized as property under
Remember that decision by the California Court of Appeal which held that the City of San Jose’s “inclusionary housing” exaction was subject only to low-level scrutiny and not the nexus-and-proportionality requirment?
Well, after Koontz, you should not be surprised that the decision has been taken to the next higher level and the California Building
More about Horne v. USDA. More here, from Reason (who produced the video).
Here’s the Complaint in the case mentioned.
Here’s the latest from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In Waller v. American Transmission Co., LLC, No. 2013AP805 (July 16, 2013), the court held that when a partial taking for an easement for transmission lines substantially impaired the economic viability of the remnant parcel, the condemnor is liable for taking the entire parcel.
Gideon Kanner