This just in. The Court, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts:
The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §§1311(a), 1362(7), (12). Because it can be difficult to determine whether a particular parcel of property contains such waters, the U. S.
We did a post a while back about a Houston barbecue restaurant which had some troubles with the Harris County, Texas, Metropolitan Transit Authority. The court of appeals held that the restaurant’s lost profits could not be recovered in an inverse condemnation action.
Well, that same court has rendered an opinion in a case involving
Programming note: On the day we remember our nation’s war dead, we thought we’d repost this one, about how Arlington National Cemetery came to be, and how yes, there’s a takings story there.
———————————————————
You know how we’re always saying that the provisions in the Takings Clause are “self-executing,” that even in the absence of
The dramatic moment of the day during last Thursday’s California Supreme Court oral arguments in City of Perris v. Stamper, No. S213468 (which we previewed here: “Cal Supreme Court Oral Argument Preview: In Just Comp Trial, Does Jury Determine Reasonable Probability Of Exaction?“), occurred during the rebuttal arguments by the city’s lawyer. The case
A short one from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. In Pinkham v. Dep’t of Transportation, No. 2016 ME 74 (May 19, 2016), the court held that portions of the DOT’s appraiser’s report which appraised other properties being taken as part of the same project were not confidential or privileged under the state’s public records laws.
Tomorrow morning, Thursday, May 26, 2016, starting at 9:00 a.m., the California Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in an eminent domain case that sits at the intersection of jury determinations of just compensation, and the Nollan/Dolan unconstitutional conditions issue.
Here is the link to the argument live stream.
The court
More on that case we reported on earlier this week, recently argued at the Hawaii Supreme Court:
Here’s the amicus brief we filed yesterday on behalf of lawprof David Callies and our colleagues at Owners’ Counsel of America in an important case involving ownership and use of the “dry sand” beach, now pending in the North Carolina Supreme Court.
In Nies v. Town of Emerald Isle, No. COA15-169 (N.C. App. Nov. 17
Check out this post (“Did the Sixth Circuit Unintentionally Adopt an RLUIPA Equal Terms Test?“) from RLUIPA gurus Evan Seeman, Karla Chaffee, and Dwight Merriam on their RLUIPA Defense blog, analyzing the Sixth Circuit’s recent opinion in Tree of Life Christian Schools v. City of Upper Arlington, No. 14-3469 (May 18, 2016).
“Mistakes Were Made”
During last week’s oral arguments (also streaming below) in Green Party of Hawaii v. Nago, No. SCWC 14-0001313 (May 18, 2016) — arguments that ran nearly 50% over the scheduled one hour length — the justices of the Hawaii Supreme Court appeared to be searching for a practical answer to the