Congratulations – if you understood this post’s headline, you are officially a rails-to-trails nerd. A super-nerd.
But even if not, you shouldn’t need a rails-to-trails nerd’s level of knowledge to understand and appreciate the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Caquelin v. United States, No. 19-1385 (May 29, 2020). It’s a case worth reading
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following (briefs here, and oral argument recording here).
Any eminent domain lawyer will tell you that loss of access cases can be difficult. In some jurisdictions, you have to lose all access before the court will consider you harmed. Or the courts see a
Any eminent domain lawyer will tell you that loss of access cases can be difficult. In some jurisdictions, you have to lose all access before the court will consider you harmed. Or the courts see a difference between a loss of “direct” access versus “circuitous” access. All we know is that from an owner’s perspective
In Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America LLC v. Foster OK Resources LP, No. 118,185 (May 5, 2020), the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the necessity of a taking of an easement across private property by a private pipeline company that possessed a FERC certificate of public convenience. Nothing too surprising there. The bar for
Things moving quickly: remember way back when — in April, was it? — when a Connecticut lounge owner sued a mayor and the governor, asserting that a shut-down order was a taking?
Well, the court recently denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order.
There’s nothing in the Ruling about the takings
Programming note: On the weekend we’ve set aside to remember our nation’s war dead, we thought we’d repost this one, about how Arlington National Cemetery came to be, and how yes, there’s a takings story there.
———————————————————
You know how we’re always saying that the provisions in the Takings Clause are “self-executing,” that even in
TEXT
Here’s what we’re reading today as we enter a long weekend (who can tell?):