Here’s a new cert petition, seeking SCOTUS review of an unpublished opinion from the Eleventh Circuit. That court concluded that Dibbs’ equal protection challenge to the Hillsborough County’s Community Plan failed because he could not identify others who were similarly situated but treated differently.
Dibbs asserted. among other claims, that the County treated
As part of a railroad realignment project, Salt Lake City needed B’s land. But B wouldn’t sell, and since B’s land was already committed to public use as a power substation, the city had doubts whether it could condemn it. So the city and B agreed that B would voluntarily give the city the land
Rhode Island has a provision in its constitution which allows condemning agencies to take more property than they might actually need “for actual construction” when building “public highways, streets, places, [and] parks or parkways.” See R.I. Const. art. VI, § 19. This provision also requires that in the event the condemnor doesn’t use
A nondescript corner of what could be just about any urban city street in America. Nothing of overwhelming interest, just the usual commercial buildings, traffic signals, and small businesses. A self-storage facility. Pretty typical in a Commercial district. Here, the “C-4 District.”
Nothing at all, in fact, to indicate that just over a century ago, this was
Today is Good Friday, an official state holiday in Hawaii, so we’re reposting our annual recounting of how it came to be that the State commemorates the date of the crucifixion, and how that squares with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Turns out that we don’t really commemorate today as the crucifixion date
Mississippi, like many states, by statute allows private parties to condemn a neighbor’s land for use as a private access road, if doing so is “necessary” for a landlocked parcel to gain ingress and egress. This power is subject to limitations: for example, the parcel must be truly landlocked with no other access. Mississippi apparently has
Today’s post is by colleague William Wade, an economist in Nashville, Tennessee, who has thought a lot — and written extensively — about the just compensation and damages available in inverse condemnation and regulatory takings cases.
He provides his thoughts on a recent trial court decision in a closely-watched Texas water case, in which the
The photo above has pretty much nothing to do with today’s case, except it also involves a Texas barbecue joint. More on the photo after a short review of the Texas Court of Appeals’ decision in Lenox Barbeque and Catering, Inc. v. Metro. Transit Authority of Harris Cnty., No. 14-14-00383-CV (Feb. 23, 2016).
One from the California Court of Appeal that may be interesting even though it is about municipal law, and not eminent domain or takings.
We present to you San Diegans for Open Gov’t v. City of San Diego, No. D067578 (Mar. 3, 2016, published Mar. 16, 2016), because the court concluded that an appraiser
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit doesn’t handle too many takings, eminent domain, or property rights related cases. But after today’s announcement that the Chief Judge of the Circuit was nominated for the vacant spot on the U.S. Supreme Court, we did a search through the legal databases anyhow, just in case