A metro-area transit district condemned a portion of a residential lot for a light-rail line. The property was owned by a LLC, which in turn was owned by a family trust. The condemnor offered $19k as compensation, but the trust thought it was worth a lot more: $280k.
One of the big issues contributing to the
Some good (Dolan, Lucas), some bad (Kelo, Murr), some … not sure (Lingle).
But now, things get interesting.
Let’s just say that we’re not totally convinced this letter from Justice Kennedy announcing his retirement isn’t “fake news,” since it does not list the four factors he considered in deciding
A short, but published, opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
In Archbold-Garrett v. New Orleans, No. 17-30692 (June 22, 2018), the court held that the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment claims (search and seizure, compensation, and procedural due process) were ripe for federal court, even though
In Adams Outdoor Advertising, LP v. City of Madison, No. 2016AP537 (June 19, 2018), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the City’s construction of a bridge next to — but not on — property on which Adams maintained a non-conforming billboard, was not a taking.
There didn’t seem to be much of a dispute
text Download Wisconsin Three v Eau Claire, No. 2015AP1858 (June 6, 2018)
Wisconsin Three, LLC v. City of Eau Claire, No. 2015AP1858 (Mich. June 6, 2018)
This one is more for our muni law friends, but today’s post also has two eminent domain angles.
Anyone who has been to a city council meeting knows at least one fellow like this, considered a pain-in-the-butt by officials. A gadfly, who testifies on seemingly every issue. This is Fane Lozman, eminent domain protester
Before you get too excited about the California Supreme Court agreeing to consider an inverse condemnation case (the Court of Appeal’s decision in Weiss v. People ex rel. Dep’t of Transportation, No. G0552735 (Mar. 1, 2018)), remind yourself that it involves a procedural issue, and one that is very California-centric.
As our colleagues
Here’s a new cert petition, filed yesterday in a case we’ve been following out of Louisiana that asks the Supreme Court to revisit the Public Use Clause questions left open by Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
In Violet Dock Port, LLC v. St. Bernard Port, Harbor, & Terminal
A quick check of the Supreme Court’s docket in the Knick v. Township of Scott case shows that no less than 18 amici briefs have been filed top side. Not all of them in support of the Petitioner mind you (two, the briefs of the United States and of the American Planning Association, are in
It’s a go for next Monday, June, 11, 2018, and the exclusive Honolulu screening of “Little Pink House,” the feature film about the Kelo v. City of New London case.
There are still some seats left, so if you are even thinking of attending, buy your ticket here, right now.
We’ve seen