Update: More here from the Star-Advertiser.
Courts, as “temples of justice” can be intimidating places, especially for the advocates who appear there. And when you make it a federal court, the level goes up. And when you are in a storied courthouse such as the Ninth Circuit’s headquarters in San Francisco surrounded by
Here’s the latest from William W. Wade, Ph.D., a resource economist with the firm Energy and Water Economics (Franklin, Tennessee). Bill is a frequent author and speaker on the regulatory takings issue, and he’s brought much needed clarification to an often confusing issue about how to apply the Penn Central test. He has authored
We just finished up with the oral arguments at the Ninth Circuit courthouse in San Francisco. We’ll have a more detailed report later today, but our initial reaction is that it looks like at least two of the three judges are very skeptical whether there was an appealable final order in the case, and thus
Here’s the Complaint, filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Honolulu in which a windward Oahu property owner challenges the City and County of Honolulu’s removal of her protest signs on her property.
The rub? She’s protesting the City’s condemnation of her property back in 2010. Her complaint alleges that the city “neither owns
Here is a deeper look at the two lawsuits filed lastweek in U.S. District Court in San Francisco against the City ofRichmond, California, for the city’s Mortgage Resolution Partners-backed plan to condemn underwater mortgages, specifically those held by out-of-state securitizedbonds, residential mortgage-backed securitization (RMBS) trusts. The first Complaint was brought by Wells Fargo and a
Update: More thoughts from Rick Rayl and Brad Kuhn (California Eminent Domain Report) here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here’s a decision at the intersection of eminent domain valuation and unconstitutional exactions from the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District). In City of Perris v. Stamper, No. E053395 (Aug. 9, 2013) the court held that
Whoa, that was fast: in a case argued on August 2, 2013, and decided on August 9, 2013 (that’s one week from orals to opinion, folks), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Village of Maineville v. Salt Run, LLC, No. 12-4379 (Aug. 9, 2013), held that the property owner/plaintiff forfeited*
Today’s the first day of the ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, so we haven’t had time to do more than scan the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed yesterday in San Francisco federal court, challenging the plans of Mortgage Resolution Partners and the City of Richmond, California to take underwater mortgages by
Our friend and colleague Paul Schwind has been keeping us up to date with the latest in the dual legal challenges to the Honolulu rail project. His last post focused on the state court happenings.
Here’s the latest on the federal court action, now awaiting oral argument in the coming weeks in the Ninth
Here’s the latest from the New Jersey Supreme Court on the power of railroads to take property, and when land is already being put to a “prior public use” and thus immune from being taken.
In Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Intermodal Properties, LLC, No. A-117-11 (Aug. 6, 2013), the court held that the
