For those of you, like us, who were not able to be in DC for today’s oral arguments in the “larger parcel” or “denominator” case, Murr v. Wisconsin (see our preview of the arguments here), here’s the transcript, hot off the press.
The Eminent Domain Angle In The Hawaii Federal Court’s Immigration EO Ruling
We think we can find a takings angle in nearly anything. See here (net neutrality) here (the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision), and here (a visit to Los Alamos, NM) for past examples.
So when reviewing last week’s U.S. District Court (D. Hawaii) order granting a nationwide TRO prohibiting enforcement of President Trump’s executive order
SCOTUS Argument Preview: Does Fee Simple Absolute Mean Anything? The “Larger Parcel” Issue In Regulatory Takings
As takings mavens are no doubt already aware, next Monday, the 8-Justice Supreme Court will hear arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, the regulatory takings case which asks whether the county can avoid application of the Lucas wipeout standard on one parcel by taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiffs also own the
Eminent Domain Case To Watch: Violet Dock Port (Louisiana S Ct)
Here’s a case you should be following which involves both public use and just comp issues, now before the Louisiana Supreme Court.
The case is an appeal in an expropriation case from a quick-take of a Mississippi River docking facility downriver from New Orleans. The Port took the entire VDP facility, made no change
Monday Links: Murr SCOTUS Preview, Mass. Reg Takings Verdict, Great Wall Of America, Train Takings
Here’s what we’re reading this Monday:
- Preview of SCOTUS oral arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin. This is the “larger parcel” case which will be heard next Monday, March 20. The Cato Institute is having a session on it at its DC facility, “Rethinking Regulatory Takings.” If you can’t be there in-person,
Montana: Inverse Condemnation Jury Instructions Were Bad, But No-Harm, No-Foul
In Deschner v. State of Montana Dep’t of Highways, No. DA 15-693 (Feb. 28, 2017) the Montana Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs, who argued on appeal that the trial court had improperly instructed the jury about the requirements of inverse condemnation law. But the court affirmed the jury’s verdict of no inverse liability
W Va: Relocation Act Attorneys’ Fees Required Where Owner Sues To Compel Condemnation
West Virginia Dep’t of Transportation v. Newton, No. 16-0325 (Mar. 7, 2017) was the second time that case had come before the West Virginia Supreme Court. As we noted here (“DOT Should Not Have Mined Privately Owned Limestone Without Owner’s Permission“), the court held that the the Department of Highways should have
Fla App: Highest And Best Use Doesn’t Require Owner Have More Than “Conceptual Plans”
Can there be a more “Florida” name for a municipality than “Sunny Isles Beach?” Opinion may differ of course, but we think this one may take the prize.
That diversion aside, here’s today’s case. In City of Sunny Isles Beach v. Cavalry Corp., No. 3D15-1420 (Jan. 25, 2017), the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed
New SCOTUS Just Comp Cert Petition: Can Jury Value Property As If Burdened By Extinguished Easement?
Here’s the cert petition we filed today in an eminent domain case out of Mississippi.
Rather than go on about what the case is about, here are the Questions Presented:
An inverse condemnation jury determined the Mississippi Transportation Commission (MTC) ceased using a highway-purpose easement granted to it in 1952 by Petitioner’s predecessor-in-title for a
U. Hawaii Law Swag Now Available
All you U. Hawaii Law grads (or those who just want a unique piece of apparel), get your newly-released swag (t-shirts, hoodies, sweatshirts) at this link. You can also get your annual subscription to the U. Haw. L. Rev. (yes, bluebooked that one), since this swag is brought to you by the Law Review