Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been following.
In SCS Carbon Transport LLC v. Malloy, No. 20230149 (May 30, 2024), the North Dakota Supreme Court held that that’s state’s statute which allows prospective condemnors to enter land to conduct surveys and the like before instituting eminent domain without liability is not unconstitutional
The Texas DOT had an easement over a portion of the Self property. The Selfs rebuilt a fence a few feet inboard of the easement (in other words, well into the part of the land not burdened by the easement). On the TxDOT side of the fence — but still outside the TxDOT easement area
Before we go on, a disclosure: this is one of ours (we filed an amicus brief in support of the property owners).
In Walton v. Newkowin Regional Sanitary Authority, No. S069004 (May 23, 2024), the Oregon Supreme Court held that the six-year state statute of limitations applicable to physical invasion inverse condemnation claims (under
Please be sure to check this out: a new animated film, “Love of the Land,” which “highlights [the] tragic story of Vermont farmer Romaine Tenney.”
You remember Mr. Tenney, who was one of those classic Vermonters. He tragically entered the pages of history more than fifty years ago when, in reaction
Readers know that from time-to-time, we like to cover the going’s on in the courts of our neighbors to the north. See here and here, for example. Although property rights are not a constitutional principle in Canada (the people did not include property as a fundamental constitutional right when the Constitution was amended last)
Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 8.37 Acres of Land, No. 23-1532 (May 14, 2024).
The caption tells you it is a federal eminent domain case, specifically the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a very controversial and much-objected-to natural gas pipeline in the Virginias.
It was on this day in 1928 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its second most famous decision about zoning, Nectow v. City of Cambridge., 277 U.S. 183 (1928).
We say “second” because everyone knows that the first is the Court’s decision issued just two years earlier which generally upheld comprehensive use, height, and
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.
In Romero v. Shih, the California Supreme Court recognized the doctrine of an “implied exclusive easement” (which sounds an awful lot like a fee simple interest, doesn’t it?) in a private easement disputed between Owner A and Owner B.
The owner on the losing
Lawprof Lee Anne Fennell, whose work makes frequent appearances here (see here, here, and here for example), has been selected as this year’s recipient of William and Mary Law School’s Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize. See this announcement for details.
“Lee Fennell is one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking scholars
This one isn’t so much a property or property rights opinion, but more “property adjacent” as they say.
Even so, we’re not going to comment much about the Massachusetts Appellate Court’s opinion in Lyman v. Lanser, No. 23-P-73 (Mar. 7, 2024), and not just because it seems faintly ridiculous.
The entire court vacated a
