Here is our annual “proof of life” photo, taken from the dais during the opening session, to prove that all 250 of us were in the room for the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference, and not out on a Palm Springs golf course (it is 72º and sunny, so a golf course would not be a bad place to be).
Here are the links from our talk this morning (along with Amy Boulris) about the latest issues to watch in eminent domain:
- NJ Appellate Division: “take now, decide later” will not support redevelopment necessity. Unless there’s “linkage.”
- Louisiana Court of Appeals with two points for condemnors: (1) don’t name your project the “Megaproject,” and (2) don’t let your Executive Director testify that but for the Megaproject needing the property, the local government would not have condemned it. If you do, don’t be surprised the court views the taking with a jaundiced eye.
- Quick takes by Rule 65 preliminary injunctions: Third Circuit joins the growing circuit split on whether private condemnors under the federal Natural Gas Act can acquire early possession of property, even though Congress in the NDA did not delegate the condemnors the Quick Take power. Our amicus brief which details why we think this is wrong.
- In these federal takings, does state or federal law provide the rule of decision on compensation (and damages)?
- Violet Dock Port: for “unique” property, the Louisiana Supreme Court concludes that fair market value isn’t the only measure of just compensation. Replacement cost evidence is admissible.
- “Property” rights in a clean and pure environment. The Hawaii Supreme Court concludes the state constitution’s provision gives right to a due process property right. But the D.C. Circuit concludes that Pennsylvania’s similar constitutional provision does not give rise to an enforceable right, because you can’t exclude others from a clean environment.
- The Uniform Relocation Act and the Pirate’s Code: (the URA is merely “guidelines,” and does not give rise to a private right of action by a property owner).
- Who gets paid: owner at time the court issues order of possession, or the owner at the time the condemnor actually possessed? If you said the former, you’d agree with the Nevada Supreme Court.
Here are some other cases we didn’t have time to cover, but which you may find of interest:
- Ninth Circuit (2-1) concludes that inverse condemnation judgment which has not been reduced to judgment can be discharged in bankruptcy.
- Virginia Supreme Court: the term “and” really means “or” in Virginia’s precondemnation entry statute.
- Iowa Supreme Court considering whether the PUC’s determination of public convenience also determines whether a taking is for public use.
Below is a “reverse” view of the opening session, taken from the audience’s perspective. Great crowd, a record number (again).
Finally, if you are here attending, please stop me and say hello.
