Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been following, the myriad legal challenges to the EPA’s recently-adopted rules expanding the scope of the definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.
The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, one of several District Courts considering the plethora of lawsuits
As we’ve done every year lately, we’re soon headed to the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia.
This year, the B-K Property Rights Prize will be awarded to Harvard lawprof Joseph Singer, who is, shall we say, an interesting choice, given his theory that a “robust
We have learned that the North Carolina Supreme Court has granted the State’s request to review Kirby v. North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation, No. COA14-184 (Feb. 17, 2015).
That’s the case in which the Court of Appeals not only held that the property owners’ claims were ripe, but that the Map Act — which gives
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 14-275 (U.S. June 22, 2015), we were waiting for this shoe to drop. And now it has.
In “Raisin ruling seen as a lifeline for endangered species,” Environment & Energy writes, “[a] Supreme Court ruling that struck down an odd Depression-era raisin
A quick one from the Michigan Court of Appeals. Murphy-Dubay v. Dep’t of Licensising and Regulatory Affairs, No. 321380 (Aug. 18, 2015) involved the claims of Mr. Murphy-Dubay, who attended 2 years at a Caribbean medical school, followed by 2 years of clinical rotations in Canada. He returned to Michigan, and passed “Step 3”
A piece on the humor site Cracked, “4 Thriving Communities That Rich People Destroyed On Purpose,” tells an old story: modest-but-decent places “redeveloped” into (1) Dodger Stadium, (2) Brazil’s Olympic venues; (3) the Salton Sea, and (4) Central Park, respectively.
(We note that the segment on the Salton Sea is the
Enviro Wars Episode IV: A New Court
You may have heard that the Hawaii Legislature, after an intensive years-long effort by environmental groups, recently created a new court with specialized jurisdiction that could have a big impact on how property and business owners are treated by Hawaii’s courts.
Known as the “Environmental Court,” this new
Takings nerd alert: we posted about this case late last year, when the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that two separate parcels owned by the same family must be treated as a single unit for purposes of determining whether there’s been a taking. Eventually, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review.
So here’s the next step, the
Here’s a short (approx. 10 minute) summary of the recent decision by the California Supreme Court in California Building Industry Ass’n v. City of San Jose, No. S212072 (June 15, 2015).
In that case, the court upheld the city’s “inclusionary housing” requirement against a Nollan–Dolan–Koontz challenge. The court concluded the ordinance
