Here’s the opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court in a case we’ve been following, Barton v. City of Norwalk, No. SC 19671 (July 4, 2017).
As we noted in our earlier post where we detailed the facts, the case involved two non-contiguous parcels, one of which was used for a parking lot
If you are within striking distance of Madison next month, consider attending the “Property Rights and Land Use in Wisconsin” symposium at the U. Wisconsin Law School.
This is a one-day conference, and as you might expect, one of the big focuses of the day will be the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in
Earlier this year, I had the honor of moderating a panel speaking about transportation sharing legal issues at the University of Hawaii Law Review‘s sharing economy symposium. The editors have been hard at work since, and the symposium issue is being printed as we speak.
They also permitted me to pen this little missive,
So how does a property lawyer salve the wounds of the last few days, which saw a really bad Supreme Court ruling in a regulatory takings case, and shortly thereafter the justices deny review of your just compensation petition while you just happen to be in Los Angeles, California?
Langer’s Deli, that’s how.
After Murr, the pending cert petition in Lost Tree was D.O.A., and today, the Court made it official. Cert denied. We thought that the Federal Circuit’s denominator analysis was the better one (although pretty much anything would have been better than what Justice Kennedy and his Immortals came up with in Murr).
Here’s the Honolulu Star-Advertiser latest story on the Honolulu rail authority’s condemnation of the property of Blood Bank of Hawaii, “Blood bank sues over city push to take land for rail.”
The state’s lone blood supplier is pushing back in court against the city’s efforts to acquire the land fronting its Dillingham Boulevard
What to make the Justice Kennedy-authored 5 justice majority opinion in Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214 (June 23, 2017)?
There, the majority adopted — maybe “created from whole cloth” would be a more accurate description — a multifactor test for determining the “larger parcel’ or “denominator” in regulatory takings cases where the owner possesses
We obviously wish we had better news, but today, the U.S. Supreme Court in this order declined to review the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in a just compensation case in which we represented the petitioner.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas filed this brief statement:
When a State negotiates an easement limited to one
Update: Here are my first thoughts on Murr – “Justice Kennedy’s Social Justice Warrior Test for Takings Clause Property in Murr v. Wisconsin“
The title alone should tell you this was authored by Justice Kennedy, which means that, as we thought it might do, today the U.S. Supreme Court held in Murr
SCOTUSblog takes note of our cert petition in Bay Point Properties, Inc. v. Mississippi Transportation Commission, No. 16-1077 (cert. petition filed Mar. 3, 2017), a case which seeks U.S. Supreme Court review of a decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court. We represent the Petitioner.
In the “Petitions to Watch” segment, Aurora