Here are the cases and other items I either spoke about or mentioned at today’s Transportation Research Board‘s 57th Annual Workshop on Transportation Law in Cambridge, Massachusetts:
The plaintiffs owned mining and homestead claims on land in the Santa Fe National Forest. They claimed they own easements to access these lands, recognized by federal statutes. The government said no, these are just access rights, not easements.
Then a fire, followed by flooding which severely damaged the Forest Service roads which the plaintiffs
Remember that case from earlier this year where the Hawaii Supreme Court held that for purposes of Hawaii’s Due Process Clause, the Sierra Club (any “person,” actually) has a property right in a “clean and healthful environment?”
We asked if that were the case, then what does that “property” right look like? For example, how
Here’s the amici brief we’re filing in an important Public Use case we’ve been following.
In St. Bernard Port, Harbor & Terminal District v. Violet Dock Port, Inc., No. 2017-C-0434 (Jan. 30, 2017), the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the taking by the St. Bernard Port, Harbor, and Terminal District of a Mississippi River docking facility
To lawyers, the word “and” between two clauses in a statute means that the requirements of both clauses must be met (aka “conjunctive”), while the word “or” signifies that either of the requirements are enough (“disjunctive”).
So you might think that when asked to interpret whether a statute that allows pipeline companies to enter land
Honolulu’s homeless problem is a tough nut to crack. There are no easy answers. People have rights, even if that means they have the freedom to live outside. But when a walk out the door of your downtown office becomes an exercise in dodging human waste, poor unfortunates in various stages of mental illness
The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to review a public use case we’ve been following with keen interest, Carousel Farms Metropolitan District, No. 18SC30 (July 2, 2018), one we noted was the “most interesting” such case of 2017.
The Court of Appeals held that the actual purpose of the taking was private, so
In Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Superior Court, No. C085308 (July 2, 2018), there’s no discussion of the inverse condemnation claims brought by property owners against Pacific Gas and Electric for the devastating 2015 Butte wildfire. But since we’re following the progress of all wildfire cases, we thought you might be interested
Here’s a cert petition we’ve been waiting to drop, in a case we’ve been following out of Florida.
In Town of Ponce Inlet v. Pacetta, LLC, No. 5D14-4520 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. June 16, 2017), the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a Lucas takings verdict, concluding the case might not even be ripe
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