Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. We even visited the site with our class last year.
Today, the Virginia Supreme Court heard argument on the petition for appeal (streaming above from the webstream, or download the mp3 here) in what we call the oyster case because it involves the property
Here’s what we’re reading today, spurred by the headlines swirling around all of us. Mostly cases about the role of the courts when government curtails liberty or property rights under its police or emergency powers. We’ve now seen the first lawsuit claiming that an order to shut down businesses is a due process violation and
Well, here it is. What looks like the first complaint to be filed challenging a state governor’s order to shut down businesses to “flatten the curve.”
The complaint seeks class action status, and raises section 1983, due process, and Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment takings claims. It seeks damages, compensation, a declaratory judgment, and, interestingly, an
The materials we were reading yesterday (particularly Steve Silva’s “History: Fire and Blood(worth),” got us to thinking. There, Steve wrote about the September 2, 1666 London fire which destroyed 80% of the city, the government’s emergency powers, and compensation. He also brought up a subject we had not know of before: the subsequent
It’s tough with all that’s swirling around all of us to keep focused on non-virus related things. But because we think that’s one way to keep calm and carry on, we shall continue to endeavor to do so. But come on, being takings and dirt lawyers we also can’t help viewing current events through
The work of the courts goes on, and as long as there’s stuff to report, we’ll keep reporting as usual.
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an important takings decision in a case and issue we’ve been following for what seems like forever. In Anaheim Gardens, L.P. v. United
As long-time readers know, we often kvetch about the way many courts ignore the Palazzolo rule that simply because someone obtains property subject to preexisting restrictions on use does not preclude them automatically from raising takings claims. See here, here, here, and here, for example. More about the Palazzolo case here, including
Here’s one for our Hawaii folks, in case you all are curious about the origins of the analytical framework which courts use to review the legality of measures taken by the authorities in the name of “public health” that have an impact on the uses of private property.
As far as we can tell, The
US 50 in Nevada – the “Loneliest Road”
Here’s the cert petition which we and our Nevada colleague Luke Busby filed today, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review this Question Presented:
Conflicting with Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982), the Supreme Court of Nevada concluded that to prevail on
Torromeo Industries owned a 12-acre parcel zoned “Industrial.” Two buildings — one a home, the other a 4,000 square foot industrial building — were on the land. Sole access to the property way by a private driveway along the 149 foot frontage of the parcel. Industrial zoning has a minimum lot size of 80,000 square
