There’s nothing new in the California Court of Appeal’s opinion in Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. A138301 (July 7, 2015), which is probably why the court didn’t designate it for publication.
But read it anyway, since there’s some interesting bits. Nothing in the details, mind you, but in the overall vibe of
Here’s the Complaint, filed late last week in an Oklahoma federal court, challenging the EPA and Corps of Engineers’ new “waters of the United States” rule under the Clean Water Act.
According to the lawsuit, the new WOTUS rules are an attempt to expand the regulatory authority of the agencies well beyond what the
Even though the defendant in Martinez v. California Dep’t of Transportation, No. G048375 (June 12, 2015, ordered published July 7, 2015) was Caltrans, this was not an eminent domain case, but rather a tort case about whether the agency negligently designed a roadway which caused Mr. Martinez to crash his motorcycle.
But no
There’s apparently a huge backlog in California of liens which workers’ comp medical providers file to seek payment for services they’ve provided to injured workers.
These are liens possessed by service providers for workers whose employers declined to provide treatment on the ground it is not work related. In those cases, the worker may seek
Nobody’s perfect, as much as we may want them to be. Least of all fictional characters. But Atticus Finch, the Alabama lawyer portrayed in the novel “To Kill a Mockingbird” and the celebrated film, seemed above reproach.
The first year we sponsored the Law in Film festival, we had to feature “
In North Carolina, a property owner has a right to direct access to adjacent highways, and “[i]f the State’s action eliminates all direct access to the abutting road, then the action is ‘a taking as a matter of law.'” Dep’t of Transportation v. Harkey, 301 S.E.2d 64, 71 (N.C. 1983). And it doesn’t matter
Here’s an article by IJ’s Dana Berliner, a retrospective on public use in eminent domain and where the decade since Kelo has left us.
It is a sign of the constitutional damage Kelo caused that these two related features of the opinion—blind deference and the refusal to engage with facts—have marked post-Kelo jurisprudence.
ALI-CLE has posted the registration page for the 2016 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Conference, in Austin. Register now for a $200 discount off the tuition. Or you can sign up for notification when the full brochure is published.
Save the spot on your calendar so you can join us in Austin.
We’re still
Donald Trump is garnering a lot of press these days for things not related to eminent domain. And there’s a lot of awareness of the high-profile eminent domain battle in New Jersey, in which he was the “B” in an attempted “A to B” taking. But not everyone is as aware of a later, similar
Remember the Roca Solida case? That’s the follow up to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011), highlighting the jurisdictional problem in takings cases which that case left open. We labeled it a “jurisdictional ambush” that awaits any property owner who has a takings