Here’s the latest for you RLUIPA mavens, a complaint recently filed in Hawaii federal court by a Maui “integral yoga” temple and its leader against the County for not permitting it to use their site on Maui’s north shore for things like weddings and religious observations. Parking was the proffered reason, it appears.
Dwight
We’re going to start off 2015 slightly off-topic, a movie review. But rest assured, there is a small eminent domain connection.
Anyone who was around in the 1960s and 1970s remembers those paintings and prints of sad children with oversize eyes. They were ubiquitous. But they gave our young eyes dissonance. To us, “art”
Here’s that last case in our 2014 opinion queue, from way back in July. It’s also coincidentially the 2,500th post on the blog.
In Sawn Beach Corolla, LLC v,.County of Currituck, No. COA13-1272 (July 1, 2014), the North Carolina Court of Appeals considered vested rights and takings claims in a fact pattern than streched
Despite its caption, the opinion of the Texas Supreme Court in Wheeler v. Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P., No. 13-0234 (Aug. 29, 2014) isn’t another one of those can-they-or-can’t-they pipeline cases.
But it’s a case that takings mavens might find intersting anyway, because the court sets out how a property owner is
There’s one citation notably missing from the opinion of the Texas Court of Appeals in Anderton v. City of Cedar Hill, No. 05-12-00969-CV (Aug. 22, 2014): Williamson County.
This was case where in response to the city’s petition that the Anderdons’ use of their property was illegal, they counterclaimed that they had
In Rutherford Elec. Membership Corp. v. 130 of Chatham, LLC, No. 13 SP 95 (Sep. 2, 2014), the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of an eminent domain complaint filed by a private company that sought to take property located in two counties.
In cases where a private company seeks to condemn
Under Nebraska eminent domain law, the condemnor is required to make a “good faith” effort to negotiate with the property owner before it files an eminent domain action. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-704.01(6).
In Camden v. Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District, No. A-13-266 (Aug. 26, 2014), the court concluded that the
Clark v. Titus County, No. 06-14-00035 (Sep. 19, 2014) is a somewhat civil procedure oriented opinion, specifically about Texas’ “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. But it’s a condemnation case, and there’s some good background from the court about the eminent domain process in Texas courts and how appraisers calculate fair market value.
Under Texas
In City of Westerville v. Taylor, No. 13AP-806 (Aug. 12, 2014), the Ohio Court of Appeals concluded that it didn’t matter what professed “plans” the city had the property it took from Taylor, only that the city had taken fee simple absolute title.
As part of a highway project, the city condemned a
Being a short opinion (2 pages), you could read the entirety of the New York Appellate Division’s decision in Eisenhauer v. County of Jefferson, No. 14-00510 (Nov. 14, 2014) more quickly than we could summarize it.
But yes, the taking of private property for expansion of the runway at a public airport is a