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
Oregon: Statute Of Limitations On Physical Inverse Claim Runs From The Occupation, Even If It Was Permissive
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
Must Watch: “Love of the Land” – Romain Tenney’s Eminent Domain Protest
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
La Cour suprême du Canada: In Constructive Takings, Compensation Calculated Without Reference To “The Scheme”
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)
CA4: Jury Is Free To Cut-And-Paste Various Just Compensation Evidence To Reach A Verdict “Within the range of credited testimony”
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.
Happy Birthday, Nectow v. City of Cambridge!
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
New Cert Petition: Newly Decreed Easement Rule That Excludes Owners Is A Judicial Taking
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 Fennell To Be Awarded 2024 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize
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
Mass App: You Can Share Custody Of A Dog (Named Teddy Bear)
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
A CFC Primer On Rails-to-Trails Takings
If you ever wanted a primer on the sometimes-confusing and seemingly arcane world of Rails-to-Trails takings cases, you would be hard-pressed to find a better example of the substantive law and the procedures in these cases than the Court of Federal Claims opinion in Nicholson v. United States , No. 23-843 (Mar. 13, 2024).
There’s