2017

2010-03-19 13.36.36
No, this isn’t the Supreme Court, it’s Graceland,
purchased by Elvis in March 1957.

(We’re just checking whether you are paying attention.) 

Appellate oral argument, as they say, is supposed to be a “conversation” between the bench and counsel. But the overall impression we were left with after reviewing the transcript of yesterday’s Supreme Court

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.

Transcript, Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-215 (Mar. 20, 2017)

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

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

2012-02-06_11-19-58_634

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

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,

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

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

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