June 2019

The Colorado Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case we’ve been following on public use in eminent domain. in which it reframed the Questions Presented.

In Carousel Farms v. Woodcrest Homes, No. 2018SC30 (June 10, 2019), the court reversed the court of appeals’ conclusion that a taking lacked a public purpose because even though the public might use the roads and sewers which the utility district (formed for the specific purpose of taking the property which the private-benefitted developer could not acquire by negotiation) said it would install in the future did not outweigh the overwhelming private benefit in the present. In the Court of Appeals’ words, “[w]hen the primary purpose of a condemnation is to advance private interests, even if there will be an eventual public benefit, the condemnation is not for a public purpose.” 

The Supreme Court turned that analysis upside down, concluding that a…

Continue Reading Colorado: A Lot Of Private Benefit Today Does Not Overcome Smattering Of Possible Public Future Benefit

The details are yet to be posted on the web, but mark your calendars now for an upcoming (two weeks from today, on Friday, June 21, 2019) Federalist Society teleforum, produced by the Environmental and Property Rights Practice Group, about an issue that we’ve been following that is the subject of at least three recent cert petitions (two denied, one on the way): whether federal courts can issue preliminary injunctions in takings under the Natural Gas Act which allow private pipeline condemnors to obtain immediate possession of property, even though Congress has withheld the federal quick take power in the NGA.

Stay tuned for the details which will be posted soon. Our speakers will be Chris Johns (Texas) who is preparing the forthcoming petition, and Jeffrey Simmons (Wisconsin), who will present the condemnors’ viewpoint.  We’ll be moderating the program. 

Details on the way. Continue Reading Mark Your Calendars: Federalist Society Teleforum On Preliminary Injunctions In Natural Gas Act Takings: Is “Take Now, Pay Later” Unconstitutional? (Friday, June 21, 2019)

0606191053_HDR

Here are the links to the cases which were not in your materials. Theme of the day: amateurs! 

Our thanks to colleagues Jill Gelineau and Paul Sundermier for asking us to present. It was good to see our Oregon friends again. 

…
Continue Reading Links From Today’s Portland Eminent Domain Conference

A forthcoming article in the Cornell Law Review (“Virtual Briefing at the Supreme Court“) argues that it’s an “open secret” that the way to influence a SCOTUS case is to hit up social media:

The open secret of Supreme Court advocacy in a digital era is that there is a new way to argue to the Justices. Today’s Supreme Court arguments are developed online: They are dissected and explored in blog posts, fleshed out in popular podcasts, and analyzed and re-analyzed by experts who do not represent parties or have even filed a brief in the case at all. This “virtual briefing” (as we call it) is intended to influence the Justices and their law clerks but exists completely outside of traditional briefing rules.

On the heels of that comes this: a web page and Twitter account devoted (for now) solely to a case we’ve been following that…

Continue Reading Twitter Is The New Cream

In Berry v. City of Chicago, No. 1-18-0871 (May 22, 2019), a divided Illinois court of appeals reversed the dismissal of an inverse condemnation claim, holding that even though the potential damage was widespread, the plaintiffs might be able to show that they incurred damage beyond those incurred by the general public.

The case should be interesting to both inverse and straight takings mavens because the court split on how the “public in general” is defined: does it mean, as the majority essentially concluded, everyone served by the alleged condemnor, or (as the dissenting justice concluded) just those who were subject to the action which is claimed to be a taking (or, in eminent domain terms, the project)?

The complaint alleged: 

[T]he City embarked on a project to replace water mains and water meters throughout Chicago. In replacing the water mains and meters, however, plaintiffs allege that the City…

Continue Reading How Is “The Public” Defined When It Comes To Special Damages?