Here’s the Reply Brief we’re filing today in Bay Point Properties, Inc. v. Mississippi Transportation Commission, No. 16-1077 (cert. petition filed Mar. 3, 2017), a case which seeks review of a decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court. We represent the petitioner.
The brief responds to the MTC’s Brief in Opposition, and rather
Some of you may have been wondering what happened in the past few days to Gideon’s Trumpet, the blog by Professor Gideon Kanner. We check it daily, so were surprised when we surfed over and instead of the usual commentary on eminent domain and property law, we were redirected to a web hosting service.
text Stephens Production Co. v. Larsen, No. 111,489 (May 9, 2017)
Stephens Production Co. v. Larsen, No. 111,489 (Okla. May 9, 2017)
No, it’s not for that job position, recently vacated.
This is an opening at a slightly lower level, but perhaps of more interest to our readers. The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking a “Trial Attorney (Inverse Condemnation) GS-14/15.” Here’s the job description:
The attorney selected will be expected to represent the
Here’s what we’re reading today:
Here’s the latest in the “audacious” takings case brought by AIG against the federal government for the 2008 fed takeover. The heart of the complaint is that the acquisition of AIG was an unconstitutional exaction. The Court of Federal Claims rendered a verdict that was hailed as a groundbreaking victory, but which ultimately
This case — a related case, actually — has been up to the West Virginia Supreme Court before. See “West Virginia: DOT Should Not Have Mined Privately Owned Limestone Without Owner’s Permission.” But even though the underlying facts were the same (the DOT mined limestone from private property without first buying it from the
Thank you, Justice Kagan, for giving us a citeable Spider-Man reference (Kimbel v. Marvel Ent. LLC., 135 S. Ct. 2401, 2415 (2015) (“[I]n this world, with great power, there must also come—responsibility”)), and to The Castle, just for being a good, quotable eminent domain movie.
Here’s one that — although unpublished — is still worth a quick read. Because it’s a case where the Sixth Circuit held that a federal court takings claim against the City of Franklin, Tennessee, which is the seat of Williamson County, Tennessee, should be dismissed under Williamson County because it wasn’t ripe.
In Beech v.
Apparently, property owners setting their buildings on fire to collect the insurance is a thing in Pennsylvania, the location of our story. We say this because the Pennsylvania legislature adopted a statute which requires that before an insurance company pays out proceeds from a fire policy to a “named insured,” it check with the local