Great crowd today in Austin for CLE International’s Eminent Domain seminar, co-chaired by our colleagues Chris Clough, Sejin Brooks, and Christopher Oddo. We spoke about “National Trends and Developing Issues in Eminent Domain.”
Here are the cases I referred to which are not included in your written materials:
- “Doggone stinky” government action, but no property right in use of land.
- Ninth Circuit: “fundamental” attributes of property may be immune from state law changes
- Property rights in a “clean and healthy environment” – Hawaii vs. DC Cir (Pennsylvania law)
- Sixth Circuit: “forced pooling” statute isn’t a taking
- “Bad faith” as a way to challenge a taking
- 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
- NJ Appellate Division: “take now, decide later” will not support redevelopment necessity. Unless there’s “linkage”
- Does the takings clause require compensation for the taking of use, or of value?
- Does the takings clause protect investment expectations, or current profitability?
- Donuts and loss of business goodwill in eminent domain
- The Uniform Relocation Act and the Pirate’s code
- Kansas relocation: owner who voluntarily sold entitled to benefits if there’s evidence of an intent to condemn
- Why do lower courts continue to dis Palazzolo? see also Indiana
- Tort vs “taking” – Montana, California (wildfire liability),
- Ninth Circuit (2-1): inverse condemnation judgment which has not been reduced to judgment can be discharged in bankruptcy
- Antrim Truck Centre – the Supreme Court of Canada on circuitry of access and “injurious affection”