Here’s an issue that we’ve been following for a while. What will a court do when a condemnor is ordered to pay (the property owner has a judgment in hand), but the condemnor says “no thanks”?
The latest incarnation is the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in Ariyan, Inc. v. Sewerage & Water Board
From the “too modest” department: when you find out that a fellow you knew only as an appraiser/MAI (who once mentioned offhand that he was “in the Army for a bit before I became an appraiser”) was so much more than what you knew him as.
Yes, he was the one who taught you about
Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in 301, 712, 2103 and 3141 LLC v. City of Minneapolis, No. 20-3493 (Mar. 14, 2022), in which the court held that a Minneapolis ordinance prohibiting property owners from rejecting a prospective tenant because of the applicant’s criminal, credit, or rental history
See if you can navigate this maze.
Even if you are not in California, this thing called “CEQA” (the California Environmental Quality Act) is something you might have heard of. An environmental reporting statute on steroids, CEQA is, according to this new report from the Pacific Research Institute, the main reason why California is
When you are building a sewer, grading is important. Otherwise, the stuff might not “flow” correctly, if you get our drift. Okay Public Works Authority built a sewer, and guess what? “The work performed by OPWA caused extensive damage” to private property, and the “lines installed by OPWA had not been properly graded.”
Not good.
Here’s a really short one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Not published, so even shorter than you might expect.
In Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Ass’n v. Kimsey, No. 20-2176 (Mar. 1, 2022), the court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that the sole remedy for a takings claim is just compensation.
Well, that was quick. Last month, as we reported here, the a Ninth Circuit panel held that the City of Oakland, California, could require property owners to pay thousands of dollars in what is branded “relocation fee” to their tenants as a precondition of the owner moving into their own property. This isn’t an
Some good news: our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague Jim Burling is slated to receive the 2022 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize in September.
Check out the media release, with more details:
James Burling, Vice President of Legal Affairs at Pacific Legal Foundation, will receive the 2022 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize at William & Mary Law School’s
We gotta be honest here: when the substantive portion of an opinion (even an opinion about takings and exactions) begins with, “Congress created the Enterprises to, inter alia, provide liquidity to the mortgage market…” our eyes kind of glaze over. It’s going to be one of those opinions.
But we soldiered on, and slogged
Lately, we’ve been zeroing in on one of the lesser known parts of the Supreme Court’s takings canon, Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), where the Court concluded that a city ordinance that limited the amount a property owner could charge a tenant for rent was not a physical invasion taking.