A small but critical mention in the cinema’s greatest closing argument (Dennis Denuto, Esq., above, in The Castle) for the Australia High Court’s decision in Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2), (1992) 175 CLR 1 (1992):
Denuto: It’s the vibe of it.
Judge: Allright, taken. Do you have a precedent which supports this … “vibe?”
The Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in Hardee County v. FINR, II, Inc., No. SC1501260 (May 25, 2017), is pretty Florida-specific, because it involves the interpretation of that state’s Bert Harris Act (something we wish we had in our arsenal), but there are lessons in the case that make it worth reading — it’s
Here’s the amici curiae brief we filed today on behalf of Owners’ Counsel of America, NFIB Small Business Legal Center, Cato Institute, and Professor David Callies in support of a cert petition which we detailed here.
The case is a regulatory takings claim, and involves wet and dry sand beaches, public
Welcome to a new entry in the eminent domain and takings blogosphere, Texas colleague Clint Schumacher‘s Eminent Domain Podcast. Yes, you don’t have to read to get your takings updates, you can listen while you work, while you work out, or while you drive or fly. Go here to subscribe or download episodes
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been tracking, the City of Missoula, Montana’s takeover of a privately-owned water system. Last year, the Montana Supreme Court held that the city could exercise its power of eminent domain to take the property for a “more necessary” public use. The court allowed the city to take the
We don’t normally post trial court decisions, particularly ones which simply dismiss a case. But the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s recent memorandum order in The Property Management Group, Ltd. v. City of Philadelphia, No. 17-1260 (May 23, 2017), which deals in part with a somewhat unusual takings claim, is
My thanks to Bart Freedman (K&L Gates) and Kinnon Williams (Inslee Best Doezie & Ryder) for asking me to speak on national takings and inverse condemnation issues at yesterday’s Eminent Domain conference in Seattle.
As you can see, the room was packed and standing room only. Here are the cases and issues I mentioned
Here’s a rundown of the commentary on 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.
Yesterday, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion opinion authored by Justice Nakayama in an eminent domain case we’ve been following. We filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the property owner on one of the three issues presented, too. More on that below.
The case involves three parcels on Kauai — one
We’re back in meme territory today, with the Georgia Supreme Court’s opinion in Abramyan v. Georgia, No. No. S17A0004 (May 15, 2017), a case about takings, taxi medallions, and (you guessed it), ridesharing and the “sharing economy.”
After the Georgia legislature adopted a statute that made it easier for ridesharing services to operate by