Here are the links and references to the cases we spoke about today at our opening session on the national trends in eminent domain law at the 2017 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference in San Diego.
We again have a record attendance, and a good number of new attendees. If you aren’t here now, we’re sorry you didn’t make it. But fear not: ALI-CLE has already set the date and location for the 2018 Conference: save the date on your calendars now — January 25-27, 2018, Charleston, South Carolina, at the Francis Marion Hotel.
- North Carolina’s Map Act case (Kirby). Land banking to keep the eventual acquisition price low, is a taking.
- Nevada: No Regulatory Taking When DOT Announced Future Plans To Condemn.
- California’s City of Indio case: temporary “no build” area while city gets around to taking the property is a taking.
- Municipal takings of public utilities: Montana Supreme Court writes “more” out of the “more necessary” clause.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Delegation Of Eminent Domain Power To Pipeline Companies Violates Fifth Amendment’s Public Use Clause.
- Through, Not To: A Pipeline With No Kentucky Offramps Isn’t For Public Use (for Kentucky).
- Pipeline takings: Pennsylvania appellate court agrees that the polar vortex made them do it.
- 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.
- Georgia appellate court: appraisal “before” negotiations means just that.
- Colorado Supreme Court reads its eminent domain statute narrowly: when it says Commission must approve taking, DOT can’t do it.
- Virginia: an unacceptably low appraisal = “bona fide” offer.
- 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.
- Who decides, Part II: West Virginia Supreme Court concludes that condemnor (not the courts) is sole determiner of sufficiency of quick take deposit.
- Tex App: Rail Construction Cutting Off Access Can Be Inverse Condemnation – Even When There’s Been No Taking.
- Kauai condemnation: Hawaii Supreme Court arguments in “larger parcel” case.
- SCOTUS and larger parcel in regulatory takings: Murr v. Wisconsin – the “larger parcel’ in regulatory takings.
- Who decides? 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).
Related articles