A “fish” need not be “connected to a marine habitat” after all.
You remember that classic lawyer joke?
A company is on the hunt for a new CEO and decides to undertake the search from within existing management. The hiring committee schedules interviews with the company engineer, the company accountant, and the company lawyer. The
Here’s what we’re reading today:
Here’s one we’ve been following since its inception, even before we joined the law firm that represents the property owner. (And because our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues are repping the plaintiffs in this one, we won’t be commenting in-depth.)
You may remember that in Gunderson v. Indiana, 90 N.E.3d 171 (Ind. 2018)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Nowlin v. Pritzker, No. 21-1279 (May 20, 2022), adds to a long line of rulings denying takings claims for coronavirus-related business shutdowns.
This one challenged the Illinois governor’s executive orders which required “non-essential” businesses to shut down or reduce operations, and limited the
In FTB Everett Realty, LLC v. Mass. Gaming Comm’n, No. SJC-13196 (May 23, 2022), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court revived a property owner’s Penn Central takings claim, reversing the trial court grant of summary judgment to the Commission.
This one deals with the intricacies of gambling law and the process necessary to approve the
Here’s a pretty rare one: a trial court entering summary judgment on liability in favor of the property owner in a takings case. Yes, you read that right.
And to top it off, this ruling comes in a case in which the taking alleged was a police invasion and destruction of a home for the
Check this out: Pepperdine lawprof Shelley Saxer has a piece in Jotwell, “The Impact of Knick on Regulatory Takings and Those Pesky Lucas Exceptions,” a review of U. Hawaii lawprof David Callies’ book, “Regulatory Takings After Knick.”
The review is short and to the point, so we suggest you read
In City of Baytown v. Schrock, No. 20-0309 (May 13, 2022), the Texas Supreme Court held that it isn’t a taking when a city, in violation of state law, cuts off utility services to property.
The issue, as the court restated it, was “whether a claim of economic harm to property resulting from the
After the U.S. Supreme Court in Cedar Point Nursery reminded everyone that the Court’s longstanding focus on the right to exclude others as one of the most fundamental of property rights is as fresh today as it ever was (see Kaiser Aetna (uninvited boaters), Loretto (cable TV box), Nollan (beachcombers) and
The Cass County Water Resource District wanted to acquire the Sauvageau property for a flood control project. That means flooding the property, removing all trees and vegetation, and taking dirt. Putting the land underwater, permanently. Cutting off the public access road. And removing the Sauvageau home.
The District offered to buy the fee interest from