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In the usual circumstance, we wouldn’t be terribly interested in an unpublished — and therefore not precedental — opinion.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
A heads up for our Hawaii appellate colleagues: on two separate occasions — in two different cases — the JEFS system has failed to notify us of events in the cases in which we are counsel.
The first case ended up being automatically “closed” by the system after an opinion by the Supreme Court, even
Those of you interested in the ongoing debate about vacation rentals (aka TVR’s) (in Honolulu, the minimum period a property owner can rent in a residential district under the zoning code is 31 days, unless the owner possesses a nonconforming use permit) should read the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ published opinion in Dao v.
Our Owners’ Counsel colleague John Hamilton deserves kudos for the Kansas Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nauheim v. City of Topeka, No. 114271 (Jan. 25, 2019).
The case is about a subject often overlooked, relocation benefits. In this case, the condemning agency’s duties under the Kansas statute which dictates their duties towards a “displaced
The “Flint water crisis,” which, as the opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals in Gulla v. State of Michigan, No. 340017 (Jan. 24, 2019), noted, is “the contamination of
plaintiffs’ water supply and their exposure to toxic and hazardous substances,” is all over the front pages. Which means it also spawned lawsuits.
The
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
With the opinion in the Knick v. Township of Scott case to drop as soon as Tuesday (we’re guessing the opinion will be by Chief Justice Roberts, by the way), hold on. We’re about to get super nerdy here. Impossibly nerdy. Yes, we’re revisiting the Star Trek analogies. We’ve been down this road before