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
Thanks to a colleague for giving us the heads-up about a recently-filed cert petition involving an issue we covered in a different case recently: judicial takings. Specifically, an allegation that a federal court has taken property, and as a consequence, the United States owes just compensation. The background of the case is pretty interesting
In Bayberry Cove Children’s Land Trust v. Town of Steuben, No. Was-17-258 (Feb. 27, 2018), the Maine Supreme Judicial Court considered whether the Town’s exercise of eminent domain to take an interest to a road the public had apparently been using for decades (if not centuries) was for public use.
A 2013 survey, however
Here’s the cert petition, recently filed in a case we’ve been following from South Dakota.
The statute at issue — the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act — isn’t one that gets a lot of attention, particularly at the Supreme Court. But it’s an area that is ripe for review. The