In North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation v. Mission Battleground Park, No. 361PA16 (Mar. 2, 2018), the North Carolina Supreme Court confirmed that real estate brokers — and not only appraisers — can testify about the fair market value of condemned property.
The background is fairly routine — the DOT condemned a portion of a
Is climate change responsible for the severity of California’s recent spate of devastating wildfires? Several big utility companies are being sued or threatened with inverse condemnation for their roles, if any, in the damage. A story today in Climate Liability News (“California Utilities, Climate Change and Wildfires: A Liability Quagmire“) details the
Here’s the latest case on our (second) favorite subject, recovery of attorneys’ fees.
First, let’s be frank: in our experience, many courts don’t really care all that much for requests for fees and costs, for whatever reason. Maybe it’s because the merits have already been decided and these requests are collateral “tails.” Maybe it’s because
For those of you who have not recently attended the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference (just wrapped in Charleston, planning Palm Springs 2019), here’s a small sampling of the kind of thing we do.
It’s U. Virginia lawprof Molly Brady talking about the U.S. Supreme Court’s regulatory takings decision in
We’re not going to be filing an amicus brief in support of the petition for cert in the case involving Martin’s Beach on the Northern California coast. Masters of the Universe like Paul Clement and his team hardly need help from the kids in the back row.*
A very interesting (pun intended) read today from the Minnesota Supreme Court.
In Hall v. Minnesota, No. A16-0874 (Mar. 7, 2018), the court held that Minnesota’s Unclaimed Property Act, under which unclaimed property is presumed abandoned and then held by the State, works a taking when the State takes possession of an interest-bearing bank
Here’s the Reply Brief in a case we’ve been following, Brott v. United States, No. 17-712, in which the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether property owners who sue the federal government for a taking are entitled to both an Article III forum, and to have the issues determined by a jury.
If the headline of this post throws you off a bit, not to worry: it was designed to. Because the situation in the North Carolina Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Wilkie v. City of Boiling Spring Lakes, No. 44PA17 (Mar. 2, 2018), turned the usual arguments on their heads.
In condemnation cases, if the
The last time the U.S. Supreme Court faced Williamson County in a merits case, the property owners made the mistake of not challenging that case’s “state procedures” requirement directly. An exchange with Justice O’Connor went like this; from the transcript:
Justice O’Connor: And you haven’t asked us to revisit that Williamson County case, have
Here’s an article (“Murr v. Wisconsin: The Supreme Court Rewrites Property Rules in Multiple-Parcel Regulatory Takings Cases“), which we authored along with a colleague, published in February 2018’s Zoning and Planning Law Report, about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Murr v. Wisconsin, the case about the “larger parcel” in