During. Good crowd.
Before. Note the power strips on the tables.
Well played, Caesar’s, well played.
To supplement your written materials, here are the decisions and other materials which we spoke about this morning at the CLE International Eminent Domain seminar:
- Entry statutes: the California Supreme Court decision in Property Reserve: the court rewrites the statute in order to save it.
- Virginia federal court rejects facial challenge to Virginia’s entry statute.
- North Dakota Supreme Court finds that small entries are “examinations” and not takings.
- Pipeline takings: Pennsylvania appellate court agrees that the polar vortex made them do it.
- North Carolina’s Map Act case (Kirby). Land banking to keep the eventual acquisition price low, is a taking.
- California’s City of Indio case: temporary “no build” area while city gets around to taking the property is a taking.
- Virginia: an unacceptably low appraisal = “bona fide” offer.
- Colorado Supreme Court reads its eminent domain statute narrowly: when it says Commission must approve taking, DOT can’t do it.
- Georgia appellate court: appraisal “before” negotiations means just that.
- Who decides, Part I: California Supreme Court in City of Perris — judge decides Nollan/Dolan issues (but they may be project influences, so property owners do the happy dance).
- Who decides, Part II: West Virginia Supreme Court concludes that condemnor (not the courts) is sole determiner of sufficiency of quick take deposit.
- Municipal takings of public utilities: Montana Supreme Court writes “more” out of the “more necessary” clause.
- Creative Thinking Prize: Texas Supreme Court sides with property owner who formed conservation district to beat back a taking. Don’t tell me no, tell me how.
- Pending issues at SCOTUS: (1) attorneys’ fees under the URAMurr v. Wisconsin – the “larger parcel’ in regulatory takings.
- Speaking of attorneys’ fees: property owner’s claim that trial date (and not date of complaint) was date of valuation was not reasonable.
- Law review articles of note:
- Bill Wade’s article on damages and just comp when you are dealing in income-producing properties
- Virginia Law Review article on state constitutional property.
- Mike Berger’s lookback on “Property, Democracy & The Constitution.”
- Arizona Law Review: do animals have property rights?
Also, here are links to the cases which our Toronto colleague Shane Rayman referred to in his afternoon presentation on lessons for U.S. lawyers from Canada’s law of injurious affection:
- Antrim Trucking – the Supreme Court of Canada case (won by Shane) in which the court upheld injurious affection for the business damages resulting from a highway project, even for an owner whose property was not physically expropriated.
- Another of Shane’s cases, this one involving rural property and multiple parcels.
- The Texas Court of Appeals case in which a business whose property was not physically taken for a rail project was nonetheless (perhaps) entitled to inverse condemnation damages for business losses.
Our thanks to Darius Dynkowski, Autumn Waters, and Kermitt Waters for planning this seminar, and for inviting us to kick it off this morning.