Check this out, a newly-published article on takings by two eminent Florida takings practitioners, Alicia Gonzalez & Susan L. Trevarthen, Deciding Where to Take Your Takings Case Post-Knick, 49 Stetson L. Rev. 539 (2020).
If the title isn’t enough to grab your interest, here’s the description in the Introduction,
Post-Knick,both plaintiffs
Here’s the Virginia Supreme Court’s order (over vociferous dissents) extending a ban on state courts issuing writs of eviction and processing unlawful detainer (eviction) proceedings:
“Effective August 10,2020, and through September 7,2020, pursuant to Va. Code § 17.1-330, the issuance of writs of eviction pursuant to unlawful detainer actions is suspended and continued. However, this
Registration is up and online. Join us (online) for the 2020 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference. Tuition: free, unless you want CLE credit (in which case it is a very modest $100). Because this conference has gone virtual, the usual Wren Building awards banquet to honor this year’s B-K Prize winner, lawprof Henry Smith
California law has decriminalized weed. Local governments, however, may regulate the use, sale, possession, and other things (like it can regulate other perfectly legal things). You know, police power kind of regulation.
Under that latter authority, the County of Santa Cruz adopted an ordinance that prohibits a medical weed facility from growing more than 99
The Louisiana Court of Appeal’s opinion in Lowenburg v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, No. 2019-CA-0524 (July 29, 2020) is long (54 pages) and detailed. But for those of you interested in inverse condemnation liability stemming from the impacts on property owners from public construction projects, this is your case.
This consolidated
Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in Oneida Nation v. Village of Hobart, No. 19-1981 (July 30, 2020). The question was whether a local municipality has the power to regulate activity within the Village’s jurisdiction when that municipality is also wholly within the Oneida Nation.
The Nation runs the Big Apple Fest
Nothing much to see in the Massachusetts Court of Appeals’ opinion in Comstock v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Gloucester, No. 19-P-1163 (Aug. 3, 2020), a somewhat typical zoning dispute.
Neighbor vs neighbor, over whether permits issued by a municipality (and approved by the ZBA) to renovate and replace an existing — but dilapidated
California eminent domain law requires that if property taken isn’t used for the intended public use “within 10 years” of the adoption of the resolution of necessity, then the condemnor must offer to sell the property back to the (former) owner. Unless, that is, the condemnor adopts a new resolution “reauthorizing the existing stated public
There’s a lot going on in the Michigan Supreme Court’s opinion in Mays v. Governor, No. 157335 (July 29, 2020). After all, the case involves claims for personal and property damages resulting from the Flint (Michigan) water crisis. That’s an issue we’ve been following that has also grabbed national headlines.
But if you
How much can a condemnor alter the scope of the taking before the good faith offer required by state law also needs to be re-done?
That’s the question the Wyoming Supreme Court resolved in EOG Resources, Inc. v. Floyd C. Reno & Sons, Inc., No. S-20-0013 (July 23, 2020).
There, the condemnor’s original
