Every year at this time, it seems, we’re realizing again that as you get older, you forget birthdays. It 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 sixteen years ago that we posted here for
CA3: Claim That Govt Is Keeping Property Seized (But Not Used) As Evidence “checks all the Fifth Amendment boxes.”
The facts are pretty straightforward in the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in Frein v. Pennsylvania State Police, No. 21-1830 (Aug. 30, 2022):
Eric Matthew Frein is on death row for cold-blooded murder. In 2014, he ambushed two Pennsylvania State Troopers, killing one and injuring the other. For a while, he evaded capture. Police
New Cert Petitions: “Keeping The Change” After Tax Foreclosure Is A Taking
You remember our earlier posts about the issue (known as “home equity theft”). In a series of decisions mostly by state supreme courts, those courts have asked whether it is legal for a state or local government to “keep the change” after seizing and selling a tax debtor’s property. For examples, see these cases:
District Court Declines To Back Off Its “SWAT Takings” Verdict
You remember that case we posted recently, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in which the court granted summary judgment to a property owner after the city police damaged her home in the course of the police’s apprehension of a suspect. The court rejected the Tenth Circuit’s rationale in a
New Takings Cert Petition: Do Private Shareholders Have Standing To Assert Takings Claim After Govt Takes Over The Company?
Here’s the latest in a case and issue we’ve been following. Check out this recently-filed cert petition, involving the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage crisis in the late ‘aughts. Which allowed them to keep going, but is alleged to have iced out their private shareholders.
The Court
CA1: Rooker-Feldman Defeats Federal Court Takings Claim By “State Court Losers”
If you understand the headline of this post, congratulations: you are officially so deep in the weeds that you deserve both a Federal Courts and a Takings merit badge.
For those of you not in so deep, here’s the short story behind the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s short opinion in Efreom
CA5: “But there’s a big difference between saying that something is property for purposes of procedural due process and saying that it is property for purposes of the Takings Clause”
In Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans, No. 21-30643 (Aug. 22, 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, like a lot of other courts, reached an unsurprising conclusion: New Orleans’ restrictions on short-term rental of residential properties isn’t a taking. But there are parts of the opinion that are definitely
NC: Generally-Applicable Impact Fee Is Subject To Nollan/Dolan/Koontz
We recommend you review the North Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion in Anderson Creek Partners, L.P. v. County of Harnett, No. 63PA21-1 (Aug. 19, 2022). It’s long (70 page majority, plus 19 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions), but worth your time because the majority concludes that legislatively-imposed fees, applicable to all, are “exactions” that
Registration Underway – 19th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference (Sep 29-30, 2022)
There’s still space for you to join us — preferably in-person, but remotely if that is not possible for you — at the 19th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, September 29-30, 2022, at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg.
The American Law Institute was kind enough to post a notice about the Conference
Penn Central May Be A “Fuzzy” Test, But What Is A Court Doing Weighing The Factors?
You’ll definitely want to check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s opinion in Makrilov v. City of Jersey City, No. 21-1786 (Aug. 16, 2022).
Not because it reaches any earth-shattering conclusions — the opinion unsurprisingly concluded that the city’s restricting (but not eliminating) short-term rentals (less than thirty days) was