Every year at this time, it seems, we’re realizing again that as you get older, you forget birthdays. It only occurred to us only over this past weekend that that this blog’s “birthday” was looming and we almost let it slip by without notice. It hardly seems like fifteen years ago that we posted here
New Comment: Cedar Point – “A New Test Or Merely A New Name For Some Regulatory Takings?”
Check this out. A short online comment at the Yale Journal on Regulation by Judge Thomas Griffith, “A New Test Or Merely A New Name For Some Regulatory Takings?“
The comment addresses the notion that the Supreme Court in Cedar Point shuffled up takings doctrine:
Much of the commentary about the Supreme
SCOTUS Strikes Down CDC Eviction Moratorium And Leaves Tantalizing Clues About Takings
The other shoe — perhaps the most predictable shoe drop in legal history — dropped yesterday, and the Supreme Court vacated the stay on appeal in one of the cases challenging the CDC’s renewed eviction moratorium, meaning that the district court’s judgment vacating the moratorium can go into effect. Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t
CA6: There’s A Difference Between Due Process “Property” And Takings Clause “Property”
Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in Andrews v. Mentor, No. 20-4030 (Aug. 25, 2021).
Property owners sought rezoning of their land from R-4 to “Village Green – RVG,” a higher density zone, so that the owners could build single-family homes. Under R-4, the maximum number of homes was 13 and had
CA11: No Summary Judgment For You On Takings Claim When Town Provided Some Evidence Of Public Customary Use Of Beach
On one hand, the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in Buending v. Town of Redington Beach, No. 20-11354 (Aug. 20, 2021) is not a big deal, at least in terms of the issue in the case: did the Town take the plaintiffs’ private beach property when it adopted an ordinance allowing the public to
Registration Open Now: ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Jan 26-29, 2022, Scottsdale
All the topics you want to know about, presented by top-notch faculty from across the nation. Sessions include:
- Keynote: Do Animals Have Property Rights?
- Did the Supreme Court Signal a New Direction in Property Rights in Cedar Point Nursery?
- Maximizing Relocation Benefits: Understanding the Law and Regulations to Ensure Fairness
- Challenging Public Use: Lessons
Back To School: Season Four
Yes, it’s that time of the year again. Fall’s-a-coming, and that means that soon, we’ll be back at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia to lead two courses:
- Eminent Domain and Property Rights
- Land Use Controls
Unlike last year, we’re not going to be on Zoom, or in the Tennis Center, or
New L Rev Article: “The Dawn of a Judicial Takings Doctrine: Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection,” 75 U. Miami L. Rev. 798 (2021)
Here’s what we’re reading today, a recently-published law review article by Brendan Mackesey, The Dawn of a Judicial Takings Doctrine: Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 75 U. Miami L. Rev. 798 (2021).
Here’s the Abstract:
In Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 130
Three Justices: After An Eviction Moratorium Expires, “eviction proceedings will be conducted exactly as they were before”
There’s not a whole lot in the U.S. Supreme Court’s order granting an injunction on appeal that suspends application of a part of New York State’s eviction moratorium until such time as a cert petition is filed. The claims in that case are due process claims regarding the deprivation of a hearing, not takings.
But
Takings Maven Dream Job® (x2): Property Rights Constitutional Litigator at Pacific Legal Foundation
You’ve got big dreams, you want fame…
If so, here’s your chance: two (2!) Takings Maven Dream Jobs® are now available.
Pacific Legal Foundation requesting applications for positions as a Property Rights Constitutional Litigator. Job description includes “You will find and win the next important Supreme Court property rights case.”