Its deja vu all over again: like it did just a short while back, in Lafave v. City of New Orleans, No. 21-30358 (June 1, 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit once again has rejected a takings claims “based on the city’s failure to honor a judgment of the
Utah: Sale “Under Threat Of Condemnation” Means Only A “Specific Threat To Take,” Not That Govt Authorized Condemnation Lawsuit
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.
A Utah statute requires that if a condemnor doesn’t actually use property it acquired “under a threat of condemnation,” it must try and sell it back to the (former) owner. The statute defines “threat of condemnation” as when “an official body of the state or
Texas: At Least One Customer Is Served So Pipeline Is A Public Purpose, But Let’s Loosen Valuation Rules For Energy Corridors
On one hand, there’s nothing terribly surprising about the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Hlavinka v. HSC Pipeline Partnership, LLC, No. 20-0567 (May 27, 2022) holding that yes, “polymer-grade propylene” qualifies as an “oil product” under Texas statutes that allow a private pipeline company to take property to transport oil products, and that yes
Cal App Channels Dickens’ Mr. Bumble: Bumblebees Are Fish Under Cal’s Endangered Species Act
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
Tuesday Round-Up: Austin Airport Taking Its Own Land?, The Right To Exclude, And More
Here’s what we’re reading today:
- “ABIA attempts ‘unusual’ use of eminent domain to force out South Terminal operator” Austin Airport, which already owns the property, is condemning it?
- “Gun Rights, Property Rights, and Takings” from lawprof Ilya Somin
- “Can tenants have it both ways? – Some demand the freedom of
CA7: Like Other Circuits, We’re Going To Dodge The Judicial Takings Question
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)
CA7: Co-19 Shutdown Complaint Does Not Meet “Demanding test for alleging a regulatory taking”
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
Mass SJC Revives Penn Central Takings Claim Because Casino Comm’n Might Have Altered The Deal
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
District Court: City Liable For Physical Taking For Destroying Home While Apprehending A Criminal
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
Lawprof Saxer On Jotwell: “The Impact of Knick on Regulatory Takings and Those Pesky Lucas Exceptions”
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