One more to add to your reading queue. The latest complaint alleges, among other claims, that the Illinois governor’s coronavirus shut down orders for businesses deemed “non-essential” result in takings.
The list of similar challenges keeps growing. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,
Here’s the latest lawsuit challenging a government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. This one challenges the California Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 1, which indefinitely closed the courthouse doors to eviction proceedings (what California calls “unlawful detainer”).
This one does not employ a takings rationale, but takes a separation-of-powers approach. It’s concisely drafted, so we
Update: our thoughts on the Hawaii-law claims in this article, “Hoist the Yellow Flag and Spam® Up: The Separation of Powers Limitation on Hawaii’s Emergency Authority,” 43 U. Haw. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2020).
+++++++++++++
Here’s the second complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii challenging the governor’s
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following (we visited the site last November with our William and Mary class), the property owners’ Opening Brief in a case being considered by the Virginia Supreme Court.
This is a case at the intersection of property and takings law, and environmental protection. Several Nansemond River oystermen
Here’s the latest complaint challenging coronavirus-related orders (in this case, the City of Los Angeles’ rent payment and eviction moratoria) as a taking.
More here from the LA Times: “Landlord group sues city of L.A. over coronavirus anti-eviction protections.”
You should probably read the entire document, as it is drafted well. But
Next Wednesday, June 17, 2020, at 5:30pm Hawaii Time, we’ll be speaking for the King Kamehameha V Judiciary History Center about “Constitutional Law and States of Emergency: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic.”
This is a one-hour program, open to the public, where we will take a dive into Hawaii’s emergency preparedness and
Here’s the latest court order telling business and property owners that they have little chance of success on the claims asserted in various mostly-constitutional challenges to shut-down orders.
This time the businesses are in North Carolina, and appear to be — ahem — so-called “gentlemen’s clubs” (and by that, we’re not referencing those in St.
On one hand, the Colorado Supreme Court’s opinion in Forest View Co. v. Town of Monument, No.18SC793 (June 8, 2020), concluding that a restrictive covenant is not a property interest that the government needs to pay for conflicts with the decisions on similar facts from other jurisdictions (Kansas, for example). On the
Way back when (you know, less than 2 months ago, a lifetime in coronavirus time) when the plaintiffs filed the complaint, we noted that, win or lose, it laid out the takings argument in a comprehensive and understandable way.
It still may be that the arguments are worthwhile pursuing. Our more comprehensive thoughts on
We were all set to dig into the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion in Township of Manalapan v. Gentile, No. A-14-19 (June 2, 2020), when our colleague Joe Grather posted about it on their firm’s blog. See also this story (“Manalapan farm owner’s $4.5M eminent domain payday dumped as ‘miscarriage of justice’