This photo of the view from the lectern at the start of the day
proves we really were in the room and not distracted by all the distractions
possible in Las Vegas
Here are the materials and cases which I spoke about earlier today at the CLE International Eminent Domain Conference in Las Vegas. I
A short one, an unpublished and unsigned opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Warner v. City of Marathon, No. 16-10086 (Dec. 8, 2017).
As the title of this post indicates, the claims made by the plaintiff included a regulatory takings claim. The facts and details of their claims are
It’s a shame that we have to be posting this again, but we noticed the hits going up on the posts we did earlier on inverse condemnation liability for damage caused by wildfires out west:
Ten years is a long time, even in non-blogging years. But in blog years, it’s darn near an eternity. Law blogs aren’t too hard to start, but they take a lot of time and effort to maintain: Finding materials of interest to your reader. Digesting and understanding those materials. Posting analysis that you can live
Remember Brott v. United States, the case we last posted about here (“New Cert Petition: Property Owners Entitled To Jury & Article III Judge In Federal Inverse Cases“)? The Question Presented in that case is whether “the federal government take private property and deny the owner the ability to vindicate his constitutional
Here’s a case about the denominator in a regulatory takings case from July 2017, just after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Murr v. Wisconsin. We somehow missed the opinion when it was issued, but since we think it must be the first case which attempted to apply the Murr majority’s multi-factor test
A very interesting public use opinion from the Colorado Court of Appeals. In Carousel Farms Metropolitan District v. Woodcrest Homes, Inc., No. 2017COA149 (Nov. 30, 2017), the court invalidated an attempted taking of Woodcrest’s property, concluding that the condemnation was neither for a public purpose, nor necessary for that purpose.
The facts of
…this is might be it: Lampkins Crossing, LLC v. Williamson County, No. 3:17-cv-00906 (Nov. 14, 2017), in which the District Court dismissed substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection claims for not being ripe under Williamson County‘s “final decision” prong. The Williamson County case decided on Williamson County grounds.
Now, we’re
If case you were thinking you might have missed a big property case that made its way to the Supreme Court, fear not. All of the above issues were raised in the course of yesterday’s arguments in a patent case.
As the transcript in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC
According to this story (“Scott Walker signs bill inspired by western Wisconsin cabin-owners’ court fight“), Wisconsin’s governor has signed into law a new bill which remedies the problem the Murr family faced after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017).
In that case, as you recall