You know that from time to time — mostly thanks to our friend and colleague Shane Rayman and his firm — we cover property goings-on north of the border when a good property rights case comes before the Supreme Court of Canada (see here and here for past examples).
Well, here’s another one, this time
That was quick: no sooner are we all headed home from the just-wrapped 2025 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference in San Diego (report to follow soon), than Bobby Debelak posts up his report in the latest episode of the Eminent Domain Podcast –
Featuring Chris Clough, Angela Misch, Clint Schumacher, and Elizabeth
Register now and plan on joining us on Thursday, February 27, 2025 at the U.C. Berkeley Law School for a one-day conference: “Property Rights and the Roberts Court: 2005-2025.”
Here’s the agenda. Here’s a description of the program:
For much of the past century, property rights were relegated to second-class status compared
Recently, we read Professor Sara C. Bronin‘s recent book, “Key to the City: How Zoning Shapes Our World.”
With our tongues firmly planted in cheeks, the Planning Chairs for the upcoming 42d edition of this popular and venerable Conference bring you this “breaking news” report from San Diego!
As you know, in addition to being the best nationally-focused conference on the subjects that we love and a venue that is nearly certain to
One from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that is worth your time at least to skim. And the opinion is worth reading if only for the court’s conclusion which we’ve reproduced above.
Hyatt v. United States, No. 23-399 (Jan. 16, 2025) is, as the court described it, “a typical rails-to-trails action[.]” The issue
Check out this article, forthcoming in the George Mason Journal of Law, Economics, and Policy from lawprof Eric Claeys, “Takings and Choice of Law After Tyler v. Hennepin County.”
This is one of the pieces coming out of the recent symposium “Imaging the Future of Regulatory Takings” at George Mason Law School.
Here’s the Abstract:
This Essay contributes to a symposium on the future of regulatory takings. It focuses on choice of law in eminent domain disputes. When claimants bring eminent domain claims in federal courts, the courts must determine whether the claimants have constitutional “private property” in the entitlements allegedly taken. Should that determination be made with federal law, with the law of the state allegedly taking property, or law from some other source?
The 2023 Supreme Court decision Tyler v. Hennepin County addressed that issue. Under Tyler, it is a federal question whether an eminent domain claimant has constitutional private property. To answer the question, federal courts usually consult the law of the state where the alleged taking took place. But that presumption applies only if state law seems to secure and not to circumvent the federal right. And if that reservation is not satisfied, federal courts may consult a wider pattern of legal sources—Anglo-American history, the general law of the several United States, federal court precedents, and a broader cross-section of law from the state allegedly taking property. That approach resembles the approach taken generally for federal constitutional rights—especially in Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand (1938)—but varies from the general approach in the sources it makes relevant to settle what counts as private property under the Fifth Amendment. This Essay interprets Tyler, and it offers a normative justification for Tyler’s approach to choice of law in eminent domain.
Don’t miss this one.Continue Reading New Article (Eric Claeys): “Takings and Choice of Law After Tyler v. Hennepin County”
What to say about the Colorado Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nonhuman Rights Project v. Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, No. 24SA21 (Jan. 21, 2025), wherein the court resolved the momentous and highly controversial question of whether an elephant is a person?
Our first temptation is to see this through the takings lens (surprise), and snark
Here’s what we’re reading this day:
The only courthouse we know where the Supreme Court
is below the Court of Appeals (SJC on the second floor,
appellate court on the third)
A brief one from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
In Attorney General v. Town of Milton, No. SJC-13580 (Jan. 8, 2025), the court rejected a challenge to
