Here’s an article, just published in the American Planning Association’s monthly magazine, Planning (read the entire April issue here), summarizing the Ninth Circuit’s latest foray into regulatory takings, Bridge Aina Lea, LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm’n, No. 18-15738 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2020).
Federal Court: “Takings law is difficult” (But Let’s Not Cross That Bridge Just Yet In Bump Stock Case)
Thanks to lawprof Josh Blackman for pointing out this Order from a federal district court dealing with the “is the government’s outlawing bump stocks a taking” question. See Blackman, District Court Finds Bump Stock Ban May Constitute a Taking, Because the Federal Government Lacks a Police Power (Volokh Conspiracy).
We’ve delved into the issue
Backing Back Into Williamson County: Federal Court Case Tees Up 11th Amendment Immunity For Takings
We don’t usually post trial court decisions, but when one comes along that tees up some interesting issues and is likely to get pushed further up the food chain, we’re all ears.
That’s the case with the Eastern District of North Carolina’s order in Zito v. North Carolina Coastal Res. Comm’n, No. 2:19-CV-11-D (Mar.
SCOVA Oral Argument: Does A City Have The Right To Pollute Chesapeake Bay?
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
More Readings: “Real Liberty,” Vaccination, Plague, Police Power, And Takings
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
First Takings Lawsuit Challenging Business Shut-Down Order
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
Time For A “Coronavirus Disputes Court?”
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
Latest Readings: On Emergency Takings, Compensation For Commandeered Property
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
Mi Casa Ain’t Su Casa: Proof Of Lost Opportunity Is Evidence Of Penn Central’s “Economic Impact” Factor
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
Talkin’ ‘Bout My Palazzolo: Takings Claim Not Precluded Because Owner Purchased Land Already Subject To Wetlands Regs
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