A quick one from the Alabama Supreme Court. In Dixon v. City of Auburn, No SC-2022-0741 (Oct. 27, 2023), the court rejected a property owner’s claim that the city outlawing short term rentals of residential properties — when the plaintiff had been renting his basement for a while — was not a violation of
We Want A Lump Of Coal For Christmas (As Long As It Is Pennsylvania [Anthracite] Coal)
Our thanks to Professor/Dean/Provost Patricia Salkin and Lawprof Simone Freeman for inviting me to drop in on their Touro Law School Land Use class last evening to talk about regulatory takings and some of the interesting details of the Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon case from 1922.
We discussed the case, using some photos we
20th Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference: Property Rights As A Means Of Human Flourishing
Professor Gregory Alexander: the newest inductee in
the Property Rights Hall of Fame
Jim Burling, discussing Prof Alexander’s
property work.
Our panel at today’s Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference at William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia, which was focused on the work of this year’s Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize, Prof. Greg Alexander
CA9: No Physical Commandeering In Eviction Moratorium Because Yee Says “You Let The Tenants In, So You Can’t Complain About Keeping Them (For Free)”
A short one from the Ninth Circuit on a topic that we keep revisiting, whether the various eviction moratoria adopted and enforced by the feds and many states and local governments during Co-19.
We keep revisiting the topic because the courts keep getting it wrong.
And before we go on, a disclosure: this is
Midnight Quick Take: NC Supreme Court To Consider Remedies For Failed Takings – What Happens When A Taking Lacks A Public Use, But They’ve Already Seized The Property?
Here’s the latest on a kind of strange case we’ve been following.
Our case starts off as a somewhat typical public use challenge. After a developer failed to negotiate purchase from Rubin an easement for a sewer line to serve a nearby housing project, the developer enlisted the Town of Apex to lend a
2023 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference (Oct. 26-27, 2023)
This week is what we call Brigham-Kanner week here at William and Mary Law School. The week culminates in the Thursday presentation of the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize to lawprof Greg Alexander, followed on Friday by the Conference presentations (see below).
And earlier in the week, we’re having a series of law student-oriented programs
Deb La Fetra Guests On Clint Schumacher’s Eminent Domain Podcast On Self-Executing Just Compensation
The topic of the “self-executing” nature of Just Compensation is in the news these days, with the Supreme Court’s agreeing to review Devillier v. Texas.
But we’ve been on that issue for quite a while, and in a recent episode of Clint Schumacher’s Eminent Domain Podcast (if you are not already subscribed, why not?)
Links And Materials From “Inverse Condemnation & Paying for Disasters”
Yesterday, during the Annual Meeting of the Hawaii State Bar Association, we participated in a program sponsored by the Real Property and Financial Services Section, “Inverse Condemnation & Paying for Disasters.”
As you can see above, we joined lawprofs Shelley Saxer and David Callies to share thoughts about inverse claims, and the difference
CAFED: Terms Of Granted Easement Allowed “Unlimited Reasonable Use,” So No Taking For Railbanking
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Stimson Lumber Co. v. United States, No. 22-1201 (Oct. 2, 2023) does not add a lot to the overall regulatory takings canon, but the court and the caption might give you a hint that this one is a Trails Act takings claim.
As
CA4 (unpub): We’re Not Going To Adopt Justice Gorsuch’s Dissent In PennEast And Prohibit A State From Having Its Property Taken In Federal Court
We don’t regularly cover unpublished opinions, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 0.12 Acres of Land, No. 23-1069 (Oct. 11, 2023) got our attention because it involves a slight twist on the the Supreme Court’s ruling a couple of years ago in PennEast Pipeline Co.