Here’s a cert petition recently filed, which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the opinion of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court under a judicial takings theory.
The petitioners argue that the Maine court took their private property when it departed from its prior decisions and a statute and concluded that a road to
A noteworthy opinion from the Court of Federal Claims in Petro-Hunt LLC v. United States, No. 00-512L (Apr. 26, 2016), dismissing a claim for a judicial taking for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claim would require the CFC, an article I court, to review the actions of the Fifth Circuit, an article
“Help us help you.”
That was the tenor of the questions from the Ninth Circuit panel (Judges Tashima, Tallman, and Hurwitz) sitting in Portland
The Deputy AG arguing for the State started
“You Honor, my opponent’s concession that Patel forecloses his argument about the nature of the facial challenge, resolves this case in its entirety.”
Earlier today, we asked the Federal Circuit for its permission to file this amici brief urging the court to rehear its recent panel decision in Romanoff Equities, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-5034 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2016).
This is a rails-to-trails takings case in which the panel concluded that the words in the
California Associate Justice Goodwin Liu — often mentioned on short lists of potential future nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court even after the Republican-led Senate stymied his nomination by President Obama to the Ninth Circuit — just saw his chances for a promotion go up today, if ever so slightly. No, we’re not talking about
The New Hampshire Supreme Court, in our view, got it wrong in Ashton v. City of Concord, No. 2015-0400 (Apr. 29, 2016). Really, really wrong.
Indeed, the New Hampshire court seems to have resurrected the California Supreme Court’s now-defunct rule from Agins v. City of Tiburon, 598 P.2d 25 (Cal. 1979), which held
Is the forced acquisition of property by the government’s power of eminent domain a “purchase?” To the Virginia Supreme Court, the answer to that question is yes. Why, we’re not really sure, because the court doesn’t tell us why.
In City of Chesapeake v. Dominion SecurityPlus Self Storage, LLC, No. 150328 (Apr. 29, 2016)
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
