“…When the big man comes a knockin, he is there to represent the humble little farmer with his farm law arguments.
The judges all agree and so does every jury,
they say he’s the best farm lawyer in the whole state of Missouri…”
Thanks to our Missouri colleague Paul Henry (himself a darn good farm lawyer) for sending this our (and your) way.Continue Reading Farm [Eminent Domain] Lawyer – The Doohickeys
You remember, don’t you? In the early days of the Co-19 epidemic, government and public health authorities were scrambling to do something … sometimes anything! … to respond.
Dare County, North Carolina might have been one of those local governments that went maybe just a bit too far in the precaution vs effectiveness departments: it banned nonresident property owners from entering the county (and apparently didn’t ban anyone else from coming and going, only outsiders).
Dare County announced the restrictions on March 16 and implemented them over three phases. Phase one, which took effect immediately, declared a state of emergency and prohibited mass gatherings. Phase two, which took effect one day later, prohibited non-resident visitors from entering the county. Phase three, which took effect four days after the restrictions were announced, prohibited non-resident property owners from entering the county. In effect, Dare County told non-resident property owners: “If you
Here’s your chance to spend some time with the author of one of the hottest land use and public policy books out there, Nolan Gray.
RSVP now (admission free, but space is limited) to join our Land Use class when we welcome Mr. Gray to respond to the question in the title of this post. Details:
Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2023
Time: 5:30pm – 7:00 pm, Hawaii Time
Location: University of Hawaii Law School (2515 Dole Street, Honolulu), Classroom #3.
Cost: Free, courtesy of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
RSVP: You must register here to reserve your place in the room.
Parking: modest fee, available at the adjacent UH parking structure.
As we noted when we featured his book “Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It” (Island Press 2022) at the top of our dirt lawyer holiday gift guide recently, his work
If your first reaction to the Texas Court of Appeals (First District)’s decision in City of Houston v. The Commons of Lake Houston, Ltd., No. 01-21-00369-DV (Jan. 12, 2023) is scratching your head, then please come join us in bewilderment.
After all, the court held that a takings claim failed because the city is immune from inverse condemnation. Say what? We thought that the self-executing nature of the just compensation requirement of the U.S. Constitution (and the Texas Constitution) means that claims of sovereign immunity don’t hold water in inverse cases.
The Commons wants to develop “The Crossing,” one of those big master-planned communities. The usual development activities entailed: master plan, subdivision plats, city approvals for infrastructure, and even some actual site work. “By April 2018, The Commons had invested millions of dollars in planning and infrastructure for The Crossing.” Slip op. at 2.
But in
We’re not suggesting you read the entire majority and dissenting opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Landcastle Acquisition Corp. v. Renasant Bank, No. 20-13735 (Jan. 12, 2023). After all, together they comprise 126 pages (yikes!). And the case isn’t our usual fare, but “arises out of the insolvency of the Crescent Bank and Trust Company (“Crescent”) and the conduct of its customer-lawyer Nathan Hardwick[.]” Slip op. at 1.
So what gives, inversecondemnation?
We’re posting it because of the back-and-forth between the majority and the dissenting judge (Pryor, C.J., which begins on page 80 of the slip copy) on a takings question that cropped up.
We say “cropped up” because, as the majority argues, the dissent’s takings discussion “strays so far afield from the narrow” issue presented in the case that it proves to be a “false alarm.” Slip op. at 51. Thus
Today’s post is by our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague Kady Valois, writing about last week’s opinion by the Florida District Court of Appeal (Second District) in Lake Lincoln, LLC v. County of Manatee, No. 2D21-2826 (Jan. 13, 2023),
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Divide and Conquer (Or Not): Florida’s Test
For The Regulatory Takings Larger Parcel
by Kady Valois
It is highly likely that anyone who follows this blog, at least as religiously as I do, groaned when the Supreme Court issued its decision in Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S.Ct. 1933 (2017). After all, what could be more accessible and pro- private property than creating a balancing test within a balancing test and expanding the “parcel as a whole analysis” to encompass not only the regulated property but also any other property owned by the plaintiff (in the case of the Murr family, a parcel abutting the property they asserted was
We really want you there…
One (nearly) last reminder that there’s still time to register for your space at the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 1-4, 2023, in Austin. In the past several years, we have sold out due to the conference room capacity and the conference hotel block. But there’s still space, although we are nearly full. So register now – don’t delay any further!
Here’s the brochure with the complete agenda, schedule, and faculty listing. But to tempt you, here are some of the highlights of the program:
Private Utility Takeovers – Lessons From a 67 Day Trial
“Contraband”: How Property Rights Helped Pave the Way for Civil Rights
Valuation
Saturday in the park…I think it was the Fourth of July
Here’s the latest on a case we’ve been following, about the blocking off of a neighborhood in Seattle and making it a no-go zone for those whom the takeoverers wanted to keep out.
Yes, the CHOP/CHAZ case is still a thing. [And before we go on a disclosure: our law firm is participating as amicus curiae in the case.]
Business owners in the zone sued the City in federal court, alleging that the government actively aided or facilitated the takeover, or at minimum did nothing to end it. Claims asserted include Due Process, Takings, and state and local law claims. The takings claim was based on two theories: first, that the City facilitated a physical invasion by third parties of plaintiffs’ properties; second, that the City action or inaction resulted in a loss of access by plaintiffs and their
Here at inversecondemnation.com, we were all set to call it a week and take a break from posting until Monday.
But SCOTUS had other ideas.
In this Order issued today, it agreed to review Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, a case and an issue we’ve been following closely.
The Questions Presented by the petition:
Hennepin County confiscated 93-year-old Geraldine Tyler’s former home as payment for approximately $15,000 in property taxes, penalties, interest, and costs. The County sold the home for $40,000, and, consistent with a Minnesota forfeiture statute, kept all proceeds, including the $25,000 that exceeded Tyler’s debt as a windfall for the public. In all states, municipalities may take real property and sell it to collect payment for property tax debts. Most states allow the government to keep only as much as it is owed; any surplus proceeds after collecting the debt belong
Continue Reading Lucky Friday The Thirteenth: SCOTUS Grants New Takings And Excessive Fines Case
When we first read the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in PEM Entities, LLC v. County of Franklin, No. 21-1317 (Jan. 5, 2023), our reaction was one of skepticism. After all, at first blush, the court seemed to have concluded that in order to possess a property right protected by the Takings Clause, the owner needs first to prove it is a “vested” under state law.
That struck us as waaaay wrong. Yes, vesting under state law gets you a separate property interest, but failure to vest under state law does not mean you don’t otherwise possess Takings Clause “private property.” So what gives, Fourth Circuit?
Well, it turns out that despite us being ready to render a hearty j’accuse at the court, the outcome was a product of the claims made by the property owner (as they often are).
The opinion is short enough that it makes
Continue Reading CA4: Property Owner Isn’t “Vested” So No Takings Property
