In Long v. Liquor Control Comm’n, No. 16-069125-CC (Nov. 16, 2017), the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed an issue that we’ve been following — takings claims arising from government issued licenses or regulated industries. We wrote about these claims in sharing economy cases recently. See “Property” and Investment-Backed Expectations in Ridesharing Regulatory Takings Cases
The Difference Between Tort And Inverse Condemnation
An interesting read from the South Dakota Supreme Court, on the often fine line between tort liability and inverse condemnation claims.
A big rain, just weeks after the State completed a highway improvement project which included drainage culverts originally installed in 1949, which could not adequately drain an 8-year rain event. Nearby private property flooded. And
Happy Thankfgiving To You
POTUS 1, George Washington, like a lot of other things, said it about our national day of thanksgiving pretty well:
“Our fincere and humble Thanks … for the peaceable and rational Manner in which we have been enabled to eftablish Conftitutions of Government for our Safety and Happinefs, and particularly the national one now lately
Project Announcement: Honolulu Rail May Be Coming To A Neighborhood Near You
The work on what turned out to be the first phase on Honolulu’s billions-of-dollars rail project from Kapolei to the Ala Moana Shopping Center isn’t even close to being done yet, but the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation looks like it is thinking ahead to Phase 2, and extending the line from the shopping center
NC App: State Does Not Have Sovereign Immunity From Takings: “sovereign immunity must be juxtaposed with the contrary sovereignty of the individual, whose natural rights preceded government and were enumerated in the federal Bill of Rights”
The latest in the “Map Act” inverse cases out of North Carolina. This is a longer post, but you really will want to read the summary, or just pick up the opinion and read it.
These are the cases in which the N.C. Department of Transportation, under the power of the state’s Map Act, for
Colorado App Clarifies State Constitution’s “Damaging” Clause: Forcing A Neighbor To Provide Lateral Support Is Compensable
Under Colorado law, a property owner has an inverse condemnation claim when “a governmental or public entity with the power of eminent domain takes action that ‘substantially depriv[es] the property owner of the use and enjoyment of the property, but the [entity] has not formally brought condemnation proceedings.'” Kobobel v. Colo. Dep’t of Nat. Res.
New Cert Petition: Reconsider Williamson County’s “State Remedies” Prong, Or Just Overrule It
Here’s the cert petition in a case we’ve been following from the Third Circuit, Knick v. Township of Scott.
Read more about the case’s background here. The short story is that the court concluded the Township’s ordinance which requires owners of all cemeteries, public or private, to maintain them was “constitutionally suspect,” but also held
Eminent Domain Podcast, Episode XI – State Damaging Clauses, Jury Trials In Federal Inverse Cases?
You should be following along with Clint Schumacher’s Eminent Domain Podcast on your own, but in case you missed this one in your feed, be sure to check out the latest episode, which features U. Virginia Law School prof Molly Brady talking about “damage clauses” in state constitutions.
Staten Island Wetlands Regulations Are A Penn Central Taking. A Penn Central Taking!
We’re in court today (so blogging about lawyering must yield to the actual practice of lawyering) so we’re going to just post this here, and let you consider it. And maybe wait for our New York City colleagues (who just happen to represent the property owner), to weigh in via their eminent domain blog.
West Virginia: Takings Clause Protects More Than Just Land – Owners Of Personal Property Can Bring Inverse Condemnation Claims
The title of West Virginia Lottery v. A-1 Amusement, Inc., No. 16-1047 (Nov. 13, 2017) alone may not give you an indication that this is a takings case, but yes, it’s a takings case.
As the title might indicate, it’s a case involving the state-run lottery and video lottery machines. If we’re reading