I am grateful that planning chairs Justin Hodge and Jeremy Baker invited me to their conference. A room full of experts. Here are the links to the cases and other items I spoke about:
- Knick v. Township of Scott: initial thoughts on what might be a dawning “golden age” of property cases
- Knick, Entirely in Memes
- Givens v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (SCOTUS considering whether private pipeline condemnor can use a Rule 65 preliminary injunction to get quick-take by another name)
- Cert Denied In Immediate-Possession-By-Injunction Case (But There’s One More In The Pipeline)
- Bump Stocks and Takings
- Is Seizing Prescription Drugs for Use as Evidence a Taking?
- Barboan: Eminent Domain and the Taking of Indian Property
- Colorado (Carousel Farms): A Lot Of Private Benefit Today Does Not Overcome Smattering Of Possible Public Future Benefit
- Protip for Megaproject – How to Not Name Your Project
- All Your Race Are Belong To Us: Baltimore Is Taking The Preakness Stakes (We’re Serious)
- Ninth Circuit Denies En Banc Review In Case Upholding “Core” and “Fundamental” Property Rights, But Two Trump Judges Dissent
- Say What? Montana Supreme Court: Gov’t Occupying Property Under Claim Of Right Is Only A Tort, Not A TakingMontana, California (wildfire liability)
- Frozen: “Necessity” In Eminent Domain Can Mean Mere Convenience (Or Anything Else The Condemnor Says)
- New Cert Petition: Fifth Amendment Requires California To Spread The Cost Of Wildfire Inverse Condemnations To Ratepayers
- How Is “The Public” Defined When It Comes To Special Damages?
- Ninth Circuit: Inverse Condemnation Plaintiff Must “Share The Pain” – City Can Shed Obligation To Pay Just Compensation In Bankruptcy, Which Is “Purely A Monetary Claim”
- How Is “The Public” Defined When It Comes To Special Damages?
- We Are The World: Iowa SCT Finds Dakota Access Pipeline Will Promote The Public Convenience For Iowa, Even If Iowans Don’t Get Any Of The Pipeline’s Oil
- Are Pipelines For The Public’s Benefit? If So, What Public?
- “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)
- PruneYard Undone: California’s Union Easement – Which Invites Labor Organizers To Enter Private Property – Isn’t A Physical Taking
- Oregon App: Physical Inverse Condemnation Claim Is Ripe From The Moment Of Occupation
- 11th Cir: City Inviting Public To Access Beach Across Private Land Is Inverse Condemnation
- Federal Circuit: Restoration Of Foreign Govt’s Sovereign Immunity For Terrorist Acts Isn’t A Physical Taking Of Victim’s Money Judgment
And finally, this. Our single Powerpoint slide today. Because there are some days you just feel like the odd person out.
