The Virginia Supreme Court today came back with an opinion in Ramsey v. Commissioner of Highways, No, 140929 (Apr. 16, 2015), a eminent domain case in which we filed an amicus brief in support of the property owner.
Under Virginia’s condemnation procedures, as a prerequisite to a court exercising jurisdiction over an eminent domain
Here’s the latest from the Hawaii Supreme Court on the joinder of parties under Rule 19, where there’s a claim that an absent party is “indispensable” and thus the case should be dismissed. Bottom line is that an absentee should be joined if its presence is needed, and the “indispensable” determination only needs to be
In 2011, Missouri adopted a statute that looks to us like a slightly modified “right to farm” law:
The statute supplants the common law of private nuisance in actions in which the “alleged nuisance emanates from property primarily used for crop or animal production purposes.” Unlike a common law private nuisance action, section
Not too long ago — December 2013 to be exact — the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the 30-day appeal window under Haw. R. App. P. 4, (which also specifies that the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration under Haw. R. Civ. P. 59 tolls the time when a notice of appeal must be filed
Here’s the property owners’ brief in opposition to the DOT’s request for the North Carolina Supreme Court to review the court of appeals’ opinion in Kirby v. N.C. Dep’t of Transportation, No. OA14-184 (Feb. 17, 2015).
The court concluded that the Map Act — which gives the DOT the ability to designate hundreds of
After Berman v. Parker and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, observers of the law could not be faulted for opining that “the public use limitation is a dead letter.” See Thomas W. Merrill, The Economics of Public Use, 72 Cornell L. Rev. 61 (1986). Those two decisions, after all, seemed to leave nothing
To put on your to-buy, to-read list: lawprof Ilya Somin‘s forthcoming book about the Kelo case and the aftermath, available on June 5, 2015. (We’re in the process of organizing some book talk events with Prof Somin in the fall, and if you have suggestions for venues or want to host one, let us
Last week, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose, No. S212072, the case which challenges San Jose’s “inclusionary housing” requirement.
The Court of Appeal held that under rational basis review (and not heightend scrutiny) San Jose’s affordable housing exaction might survive because it was
Here’s one that just rolled in, from the Iowa Supreme Court. In Clarke County Reservoir Comm’n v. Edwin D. & Deloris A. Robins Revocable Trust, No. 14-0774 (Apr. 10, 2015), the court held that the Commission did not have the power of eminent domain because several of its members were private actors. The court
In AFT Michigan v. State of Michigan, No. 148748 (Apr. 8, 2015), the Michigan Supreme Court upheld a state statute which mandated a 3% reduction in public school employees’ salaries (to fund a failing school employee retiree health care system), and concluded it was not a taking because it was a voluntary giving by