Enjoyed the 2016 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference in Austin? Let us know what you liked, what we can do better, and where you’d like to see a future conference: drop me a line at rht@hawaiilawyer.com.
Continue Reading 2016 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference: Feedback, 2017 Venue Suggestions
Decisions Discussed at ALI-CLE Eminent Domain National Forum
Here are the opinions in the cases discussed at today’s National Forum at the 2016 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Conference:
- Ramsey v. Commissioner of Highways (Virginia, 2015) (jury gets to hear about condemnor’s earlier — and higher — appraisal) (via Jeremy Hopkins)
- Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation), No 34413 (Supreme Court of Canada, Mar. 7, 2013) (compensation for business losses even though no land actually taken) (via Shane Rayman)
- Kirby v. North Carolina DOT (N.C. App. 2015) (North Carolina’s “Map Act,” which puts a moratorium on development so the DOT can acquire the property later at a lower price, is a taking) (via Matthew Bryant)
- State of Oregon DOT v. Alderwoods (Oregon) Ltd. (Oregon 2015) (access and eminent domain) (via Chip Hudson)
- Central Radio, the case about the Norfolk, Virginia “anti-eminent domain” sign (4th Cir. 2016) (via Dana Berliner)
Continue Reading Decisions Discussed at ALI-CLE Eminent Domain National Forum
“Little Pink House” – An Interview With Kelo Filmmaker Ted Balaker
2016 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference, Austin: Second Day
The second day of the 2016 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation conference went as well as the first. Here are some highlights:
- Austin Mayor Steve Adler (pictured above), who is (was?) also an eminent domain lawyer, welcomed us to his city.
- We moderated a discussion between Andy Gowder and Dana Berliner about “First Amendment for Fifth Amendment Lawyers: Free Speech, Signs, Defamation, FOIA, and RLUIPA Claims,” how takings lawyers deal with these issues when they crop up in their cases.
- One update from that session: at nearly the same time that we were talking about Central Radio, the case about the Norfolk, Virginia “anti-eminent domain” sign, the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. We’ll have more in a full post soon, but here’s the bottom line for now: no, the City can’t ban the sign (“we hold that the sign
Continue Reading 2016 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference, Austin: Second Day
New Cert Petition: Who Owns The Deposit In A Quick-Take?
A new cert petition filed earlier this week in a case from the Florida Court of Appeals that we’ve been following.
We’ve been following it because we filed an amicus brief when property owners sought cert review of an earlier decision by the same court which held the same thing: that the property owner subject to a quick-take had no property interest in the interest generated by the quick-take deposit. Remember in true quick-take jurisdictions like Florida, the condemnor is immediately vested with ownership and title of the property upon the deposit of estimated just compensation with the clerk of the court. Florida had a statute which allowed the clerks to pay a lion’s share of the interest on the deposit to the condemnor.
This new cert petition challenges the second court of appeals decision, and sets out this Question Presented:
Whether an unconstitutional taking of a protected property
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Who Owns The Deposit In A Quick-Take?
ALI-CLE 2016 Eminent Domain Conference, First Day: Standing Room Only, National Expertise
Here’s what’s going on today, the first day of the 33d annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation conference in Austin, Texas. We’re at standing room only, with a record number of attendees and our usual nationally renown faculty.
We started off the day with our usual “Eminent Domain Update” session with Amy Brigham Boulris, and as mentioned, the links to the opinions which we discussed are going to be posted in a separate post today.
We are being followed by a panel on pipeline takings, one of the hot issues nationwide, with Joe Waldo, Matthew Ray, MAI, Thomas Peebles, and Dave Domina.
That session was followed by Professor Ilya Somin, talking about his book, “The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain.”
Above are our annual “proof of life” photos taken from the lectern, to show
ALI-CLE 2016 Eminent Domain Conference: Austin Scouting Report
Austin, Texas, is where we’re at for the next few days, for the 2016 edition of the American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation conference, now in its 33d year. First time we’re in Austin, however, and our registration numbers are looking very good, and we haven’t had this big a turnout in years.
We haven’t been back to Austin in a few years ourselves, so we did what law nerds sometimes do when we go to new towns: visit the local courtroom to check out the scene. So we dropped by the Supreme Court of Texas to take a look. Turns out it was an off-day for the court and it was not in session and the courtroom was locked. But Security suggested that if we asked the Clerk nicely, she might retrieve the key and let us take a look around. And you know what? She did.
Continue Reading ALI-CLE 2016 Eminent Domain Conference: Austin Scouting Report
“We’re Here From The Government, And We’re Here To … Do Nothing” – Gov’t Inaction Gives Rise To Inverse Condemnation
We know inverse condemnation liability can be triggered by intentional government action. But what about when government doesn’t act?
That was the issue before the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Litz v. Maryland Dep’t of the Environment, No. 23 (Jan. 22, 2016). And when the opinion starts this way, you just know where this is going to end up:
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
-Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States, News Conference (12 August 1986).
Petitioner, Gail B. Litz, might have welcomed hearing those nine words spoken to her, but, according to her Third Amended Complaint, they were not forthcoming.
Slip op. at 1.
The case involved “human sewage” flooding onto Ms. Litz’s once-popular campground from nearby septic fields, which, quite naturally resulted in a dearth of people who wanted to camp
Cal Supreme Court “Grants And Holds” Second Entry Statute Case
The California Supreme Court has agreed to review a recent Court of Appeal decision (see “Court Of Appeal Files Pro-Condemnor Amicus Brief In Cal Supreme Court “Entry Statute” Case“), but only after the court rules on Property Reserve v. Superior Court (S217738)
On January 13, 2016, the court granted and held the petition in Young’s Market:
The petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of related issues in Property Reserve v. Superior Court (S217738) (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.524 (c)), or pending further order of the court. Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.528, is deferred pending further order of the court. The stay previously issued by the Court of Appeal remains in effect until further order of this court. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar and Kruger
Continue Reading Cal Supreme Court “Grants And Holds” Second Entry Statute Case
Amicus Brief: Congress Cannot Bar Property Owners From Vindicating Right To Just Compensation
Here’s the amici brief filed last week by the Cato Institute and the National Association of Reversionary Property Owners in Resource Investments, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-802. That’s the case in which the property owner is claiming that the delay in issuing Clean Water Act permits was so extraordinary, it was a temporary taking. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit upheld the dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction under of 28 U.S.C. § 1500.
We also filed an amicus brief in the case (posted here).
Here’s a summary of the Cato/NARPO brief:
In United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011), this Court considered 28 U.S.C. 1500, a Civil War-era statute intended to relieve the United States from responding to duplicative litigation in multiple courts. The Tohono majority found that Section 1500