“You can’t have rights without advocates.”
– Michael Berger
We’re at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia today for the 11th Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference. As we’ve noted earlier, Michael Berger is this
Utah: Complaint Must Allege Either A Physical Or Regulatory Taking To Avoid Dismissal
Utah seized a failing bank without notice to the bank, and appointed the FDIC receiver. The bank owners sued for a bunch of things, including a taking under the state constitution. The trial court dismissed for failure to state a claim because the complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations to support a takings claim.
Cal App: “There is no rational nexus, no less rough proportionality”
We’re tied up today and don’t have time to do any analysis, so we post this without comment: Bowman v. California Coastal Comm’n, No. B243015 (Oct. 23, 2014), wherein the court held:
In Kleiniecke v. Montecito Water District (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 240, we held it would not be inequitable to apply the doctrine of
Federal Court: San Francisco’s Housing Exaction Violates Nollan-Dolan-Koontz
Update: San Francisco is going to appeal.
It cost a lot to live in San Francisco, these days. A whole lot, whether you own, or rent.
If you’re a renter, however, you should hope and pray that your landlord wants out of the rental business. Because under a San Francisco ordinance, property owners
ALI-CLE 2015 Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation & Condemnation 101 Agendas And Faculty Announced
If you haven’t already, please mark you calendars: the agendas and faculty lists for the February 5-7, 2015 ALI-CLE eminent domain programs in San Francisco have been finalized. Registration is ongoing, and there’s even a few more days left for the early registration discount. Substantial group discounts are also available.
We’re talking, of course
New Cert Petition: Does Williamson County Ripeness Apply To Procedural Due Process Claims?
When the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Kurtz v. Verizon New York, Inc., 758 F.3d 506 (2d Cir. 2014), our comments were rather harsh (“Which means that to reach the result, the court simply rewrote the plaintiff’s complaint and in the process blurred the distinction between a takings claim … and a procedural
Federal Court:
Here’s another takings decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, In Perry Capital LLC v. Lew, No. 13-1025 (Sep. 20, 2014), a hedge fund and others sued the federal government
Perry Capital LLc v. Lew, No. 13-1025 (D. D.C. Sep. 30, 2014)
Mass App: Eminent Domain Jury Entitled To Consider Evidence Of Potential Development
As we all understand, when valuing property in eminent domain, the highest and best use of not limited to the property’s existing use or its current zoning. The owner is entitled to prove that she could reasonably make a more intensive use of the property.
Rodman v. Commonwealth, No. 12-P-223 (Oct. 7, 2014) involved
Alaska: Owner Can Testify About Value Of Their Own Property
We didn’t think the issue of whether a property owner is competent to testify about the value of his or her own property was unsettled, but apparently an Alaska trial court did. In an inverse condemnation action which claimed that the operation of a nearby airport diminished Mr. Briggs’ property value, the court granted the
Federal Court: DC’s Tax Sale Statute May Be A Taking
Here’s one for the regulatory takings mavens, because it has just about every conceivable issue: ripeness, res judicata (yes, arugment was that the complaint was filed both too early and too late), Rooker–Feldman, the Tax Injunction Act, and an analysis of whether the property owner’s complaint stated a claim for relief under