Later today (starting at 1pm ET), our colleague Edward Thomas is chairing an ABA-produced webinar on “Low Income Populations: Underrepresented Socially, Overrepresented as Victims of Natural Disasters: Using the Law to Solve a Serious Problem.”
As in other areas of life, when natural disasters strike, it is often the owners of modest means
Rather than sum up the issue and the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s** conclusion in Smyth v. Conservation Comm’n of Falmouth, No. 17-P-1189 (Feb. 19, 2019), here’s the first part of the opinion:
GREEN, C.J. A land owner brought this action in the Superior Court, claiming that local land use regulation effected a taking of her
If you can make sense of the Montana Supreme Court’s analysis in Letica Land Co. v. Anaconda-Deer Lodge County, No. DA 18-0249 (Feb. 5, 2019), we are all ears, because we sure cannot.
The court concluded that the county’s actions in furtherance of its claim to own a road located on Letica’s property —
The South Carolina Constitution, like the Fifth Amendment and just about every other state constitution, prohibits takings of “private property” without just compensation. See S.C. Const. art. I, § 13(A).
But does that govern the situation where the owner of the property allegedly taken by a city and the State DOT by creating sinkholes
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following, involving what Colorado calls “bad faith” condemnations.
In this order, the Colorado Supreme Court has declined to review the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that a taking ostensibly to preserve open space and a buffer zone between two municipalities, was an invalid exercise of the
Be sure to save the date on your calendar for the 16th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia.
This year’s B-K Prize will be awarded to Professor Steven J. Eagle. Professor Eagle is a familiar presence to the property bar and the academy, and this award
JD Morris has the story at the San Francisco Chronicle, “California’s strict wildfire liability rule hangs over bankrupt PG&E.”
The story is about inverse condemnation of course, and how California law applies that doctrine in cases involving what look like natural disasters, most notably the state’s recent experiences with major wildfires.
In the usual circumstance, we wouldn’t be terribly interested in an unpublished — and therefore not precedental — opinion. But the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in Kerns v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, No. 18-3636 (Feb. 4, 2019) caught our attention because it involves “forced pooling,” which this site describes this way:
At its most
We suppose we should not be too surprised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s panel opinion in Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 6-56 Acres, No. 18-1159 (Feb. 5, 2019), which concluded, like the Third, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits did recently, that a private condemnor may obtain immediate possession
A short update from the west coast: the California Supreme Court late last week denied discretionary review in the case in which a California utility was arguing that it cannot be liable under that state’s version of inverse condemnation because the utility, unlike a governmental entity, cannot automatically spread the cost of any judgment to
