We generally avoid featuring unpublished opinions. Most courts don’t treat them as binding anyone but the parties in the case, and some even consider them un-citeable. We think this is wrong, and that everything an appellate court does should be considered precedent — otherwise, what the heck is the court doing? — but we don’t make the rules. After all, not being published doesn’t mean that the cases are not interesting, controversial, or important.

In that vein, we present three recent unpublished opinions for your consideration.

Anarchy takings. In Cup Foods, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, No A24-1219 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2026), the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the plaintiffs’ takings claim. The result itself wasn’t unusual. But check out the facts: this was a case based on the city placing concrete barriers in certain parts of town after the George Floyd unrest, and allowing creation of an “autonomous zone” where (allegedly) police withdrew and anarchy reigned. These barriers remained in place for a year, during which “the city acknowledged the detrimental economic impacts of the barriers on local businesses[.]” Slip op. at 2-3. To counter those effects, the city adopted one of those “forgivable loan” programs (i.e., gifts or grants) for up to $50,000. And, naturally, the city created a program to “address the social and economic problems created by the concrete barriers.” Slip op. at 3. No physical or regulatory (Penn Central) taking.

Highest and best use. In County of Kauai v. B & D Properties, LLC, No. CAAP-23-0000718 (Haw. Ct. App. Fed. 17, 2026), an eminent domain just compensation case, the condemned property was 23-acres of vacant land zoned for agricultural uses, but which is designated for future urban uses on the County’s general plan. The taking was to build a residential development and related infrastructure. The battle was between the owner’s appraiser’s conclusion that the highest and best use of the property was residential, and the trial court’s acceptance of the County’s appraiser’s conclusion that the highest and best use of the property was its actual ag uses. The court of appeals concluded that before accepting the County’s conclusion when there was a lot of evidence supporting the owner’s HBU claim, the trial court should have “independently considered” which use was the highest and best use, and determine which was “reasonably probable.” Slip op. at 11-12. The court should not have just accepted the County’s appraiser as more credible.

Inverse statutes of limitations. And finally, in Rogne v. City of Catoosa, No. 25-5093 (10th Cir. Feb. 17, 2026), the court affirmed dismissal of a state law inverse claim challenging the city’s erection of a temporary fence around the property, places because the owner was (allegedly) stockpiling dirt on his vacant lot. Start on page 12 of the slip opinion for how the court treats the usual issues in statutes of limitations cases: which statute, when did the claim accrue, and whether a “savings statute” preserves an otherwise stale claim. The court’s conclusion: “In sum, Oklahoma’s two-year statute of limitations applies to Mr. Rogne’s § 1983 Fifth Amendment claim. Mr. Rogne failed to file his claim within two years. The Oklahoma savings statute does not apply because the OCCA resolved Mr. Rogne’s inverse condemnation claim on the merits. Because Mr. Rogne first asserted his Fifth Amendment claim under § 1983 in 2024, years after the limitations period ended, it was time-barred.” Slip op. at 20.

Back to published opinions.