As we express our thanks today to all those who have served, here are some of our previous posts which feature military-related topics:
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to review the Appellate Division’s decision in Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v. New Jersey.
That’s the case where several hospitals challenged a New Jersey statute which requires hospitals to take all patients regardless of their ability
Justice Sutherland asks:
whadda mean, you don’t like apartments?
Check out this uncharacteristically-lengthy opinion from New York’s Appellate Division (and entire 6 pages!).
In Bennett v. Troy City Council, No. CV023-0709 (Oct. 24, 2024), the court invalidated a municipal upzoning (from single-family residential to Planned Development — which would permit apartments) because the city’s
Mr. Otis would be a P’Nut fan.
Our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague and search-and-seizure expert Daniel Woislaw quickly responded to the cultural zeitgeist and looked into l‘affaire P’nut le Squirrel with his keen legal eye.
That’s the case in which an internet narc dropped dime on the owner of a pet squirrel, resulting in
Charles McFarland, arguing.
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following closely (and disclosure: our firm filed an amicus brief in the Texas Supreme Court).
In The Commons of Lake Houston, Ltd. v. City of Houston, the Texas Court of Appeals held that the city could not be liable for a taking
Here’s the latest takings cert petition, in a case involving a California county’s refusal to rezone property back to its former zoning to allow residential development. The only uses permitted on the property presently are “scientific research facilities uses” and hiking trails. Or, at the petition puts it, “only public, park-like uses.” Pet. at
We like it when courts include photos and maps.
The Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Indiana v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc., No. 245-PL-118 (Oct. 31, 2024) isn’t all that surprising. After all, the State’s eminent domain action did not take access to the undeveloped property, and the owner was not entitled to
The latest issue of the University of Chicago Law Review has this student-authored piece that is worth your time reading. “Guns and the Right to Exclude: Saving Guns-at-Work Laws from Cedar Point‘s Per Se Takings Rule,” 91 U. Chi. L. Rev. 2047 (2024).
Here’s the Abstract:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Cedar
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following, which has now results in a cert petition from Michael Berger. This one involves some very intriguing questions about what limits the Constitution places on the government acquiring property for a public use (in this case, an “airport purpose”) but then later deciding it
Our outfit (Pacific Legal Foundation) has put out a call for papers. on the topic of land use exactions and housing law. Honorarium included for accepted papers, and there will be a workshop to follow.
Here’s the description:
This workshop seeks to build on the result of Sheetz v. County of El Dorado and