Another day that we’re tied up, so there won’t be too much analysis. But we wanted to post this fascinating case out of the California Court of Appeal, Friends of Martin Beach v. Martin Beach 1 LLC, No. A142035 (Apr. 27, 2016).
As the caption of the case indicates, it involves beach access. Specifically
We’re tied up today, so can’t write much, but wanted to post this recent decision from the Court of Federal Claims. Here’s the court’s own summary:
Plaintiffs Love Terminal Partners, L.P. (“Love Terminal Partners”) and Virginia Aerospace, LLC (“Virginia Aerospace”) are leaseholders of property at Dallas Love Field Airport (“Love Field”), located in Dallas, Texas.
When you think “LA” or Southern California, what comes to mind? Things like “the hills of Beverly Hills, the Hollywood Hills, and the Los Angeles basin, including the Hollywood sign, the Griffith Observatory, downtown Los Angeles, and … Mount Baldy,” perhaps?
Or maybe, like us, you think of prehistoric elephants stuck in tar.
But
The Supreme Court has declined to review the Second Circuit’s summary order upholding the dismissal of a federal court regulatory takings claim on Williamson County ripeness grounds.
In this order, the Court denied cert, over the dissent of Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Kennedy). We’ve said here many times why Williamson County is a
“Election contests” in Hawaii are pretty narrow cases, and are subject to strict rules regarding subject matter jurisdiction (the Hawaii Supreme Court has original jurisdiction), content, timing,and remedy. For more, see our earlier post “HAWSCT Confirms Election Contests Are Tough!” Thus, even when an election challenge may have merit, the road is an uphill
A longer post to start the week because it involves an eminent domain case, a somewhat rare occurrence from the Hawaii appellate courts. The issues determined by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals are important, and because we have an old eminent domain code and don’t have a whole lot of current decisional law applying it —
Update: Oral argument audio posted above.
Update: “State’s High Court Hears Arguments In Mountain Water Appeal On Wide-Ranging Issues”
Update: “Montana Supreme Court Justices quiz lawyers on eminent domain, finances“
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The condemnation of privately owned utilities is a thing these days. Seems like many local governments believe they can do
The Pribeagus asserted the County’s failure to maintain a road caused their home to be flooded repeated. They sued in inverse condemnation, including in their suit a claim for damages both to their real property and their personal property.
The trial court kept the Pribeagus from introducing evidence of the value of the personal property
Continuing with our posting of the amicus briefs in Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, the “parcel as a whole” case now being considered by the Supreme Court, here is the brief filed in support of the property owner by several western states, principally authored by lawprof Ilya Somin.
Rather than summarize the brief here
The amicus briefs supporting the property owners/petitioners in Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, the “parcel as a whole” case now being considered by the Supreme Court, are rolling in.
Here’s the first one, the amici brief for the Cato Institute and the Owners’ Counsel of America. [Disclosure: we represent OCA on this filing.]