How about buying what you thought was a retirement home, only to be told that if you want the local government’s ok change the form of ownership of the property you’ve got to offer any tenant a lifetime lease? Here’s the cert petition, filed today in a case we’ve been following for a while,
Enchanted: Inverse Condemnation For Damaging Is A Fact Thing – City Could Be Liable For Chasing Away Tenant
When we think “New Mexico,” we imagine scenes like this. Endless sky, seemingly infinite open roads, high desert … you know, “the West.”
But after reading the New Mexico Supreme Court’s opinion in City of Albuquerque v. SMP Properties, LLC, No. S-1-SC-37343 (Feb. 25, 2021), we’re going to think “inverse condemnation.” (Yeah, that may
Ohio: It Doesn’t Make A Whole Lot Of Sense To Have A Compensation Trial When The Necessity Question Is Being Appealed
We’ve been meaning to post this one, a short per curiam opinion from the Ohio Supreme Court, for some time. Not because it deals with earth-shattering substantive eminent domain issues, but because it highlights a somewhat niche, but pretty important, procedural issue.
Say an owner challenges the take, either by way of a public use
Thomas, J., Dissenting From Denial Of Cert In Penn Central And Lucas Takings Case: “If there is no such thing as a regulatory taking, we should say so. And if there is, we should make clear when one occurs.”
We were hoping for better news in a case we’ve been following in its various forms for what seems like forever. But today, the U.S. Supreme Court in this order declined to issue a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bridge Aina Lea, LLC v. Hawaii Land Use Comm’n, No.
Mass SJC: In Quick Take, Owner Can Accept The Pro Tanto Payment (Deposit) And Also Challenge The Take
If you are ever in Boston, it is worth a few minutes of your time to pay a visit to the John Adams Courthouse. The interior architecture is pretty neat, it is full of history (Oliver Wendell Holmes was here), and it is one of the few places in the country where
CA5: Final Decision Takings Ripeness Is All About Timing (So Yes, A Filed-Too-Early Case Can Become Ripe On Appeal)
We all know that Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) only knocked out the “state action” prong of the two-part Williamson County takings ripeness requirement. You may not need to pursue and lose compensation via state procedures to ripen a takings claims, but still active is the “final decision” requirement
The “Or Damaged” Part Of South Dakota’s Constitution Doesn’t Really Add Much: Damages From Police Actions Are Neither Takings, Nor Damagings
The situation in Hamen v. Hamlin County, No. 28671 (Feb. 10, 2021), a recent opinion by the South Dakota Supreme Court seems pretty bad, but a road we’ve gone down before. Believing that a suspect was inside, the local SWAT team (along with the county Special Response Team — drone and two armored vehicles
A Pennsylvania Coal Takings Case (No, Not That One)
When we hear “Pennsylvania” and “coal,” our ears perk up and we naturally think of this case and regulatory takings.
But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Western District)’s opinion in DPBS Coals, Inc. v. Penn. Dep’t of Transportation, No. 41 WAP 2019 (Jan. 20, 2021) isn’t a regulatory takings case, but dealt with more traditional
Fed Cir: No Taking Because Plaintiff Can’t Prove Ownership Of Afghanistan Property Army Used For Combat Base
A landowner in Afghanistan sued the United States for taking land he allegedly owned for use as a combat base.
Prove you own this land, the Government responded. The first step to doing that is to attach to the complaint documents that make out a prima facie case of ownership. Otherwise, dismissal for failure to
CA4: No Facial Penn Central Taking By Development Moratoria
Regulatory takings challenges are no doubt tough. Especially Penn Central regulatory takings challenges. Facial Penn Central regulatory takings claims, moreso.
The U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in Clayland Farm Ents, LLC v. Talbot County, No. 19-2102 (Feb. 9, 2021) – the latest in this case we’ve been following – proves the point. The court