Most federal takings claims against state and local government do not get heard in federal court (except to dismiss them on res judicata grounds), under the one-two punch of Williamson County and San Remo Hotel.
Williamson County forces property owners into state court because a claim under the Fifth Amendment is not ripe
“The Castle,” the comic tale of Darryl Kerrigan and his efforts to protect the family home at “3 Highwview Crescent, Coolaroo” from “compulsory acquisition” (Australia’s version of eminent domain), has made it to Netflix‘s streaming service.
This is Miramax’s U.S. edit which contains a few differences from the
This post has nothing to do with our usual menu of takings, property, and other issues. But we just had to point out to you two articles which feature comments by our Damon Key colleague Bethany Ace, adding her thoughts about the “Steven Tyler Act” (yes, that Steven Tyler), a bill
Did you know that as a Hawaii landowner you own all unmarked or unbranded cattle, horses, mules, donkeys, sheep, goats, and swine, over twelve monthsof age, which may be running wild on your land? Yeah, we knew that.
We also knew that you are going to love any opinion that starts out with “[t]he dispute
Here’s the Federal Circuit’s Order for additional briefing in the Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States case. As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier reversed the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that government-induced flooding could not be a taking because it was not “permanent, ” and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit for
The speed of the internet: we were all set to summarize our thoughts on the South Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion in Dunes West Golf Club, LLC v. Town of Mount Pleasant, No. 2011-194211 (Jan. 9, 2013), a case involving equal protection, substantive due process, and takings claims, when Dean Patty Salkin at the Law
Here’s the inevitable reaction to U. Hawaii law Professor David Callies’ recently-published law review article (and follow-up interview) about the stunning success rates certain parties enjoy in the Hawaii Supreme Court. In that article, the good professor labeled the record of the 1993-2010 Hawaii Supreme Court on property issues “appalling,” so it should come
We’re sensing a trend here: takings cases where the property owners/plaintiffs are dead by the time their cases get considered by the Supreme Court. The week before last, the Court heard arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), a case where the original landowner
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in a unanimous panel opinion authored by Judge Foley, held that a “zoning verification” by the Director of the City and County’s Department of Planning and Permitting is not a “decision of the Director” which a property owner must administratively appeal to the Honolulu Zoning Board of Appeals. Hoku
Thanks to the folks at the Environmental Law Institute, who have allowed us to reprint an article from a recent Environmental Law Reporter which brings some clarity to the subject of the “denominator” issue in regulatory takings.
In Temporary Takings, Tahoe Sierra, and the Denominator Problem, William W. Wade, Ph.D., a resource