The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 25-2935 (Dec. 11, 2025), isn’t one the typical readers of this outlet might notice.
After all, it’s mostly about a tech company beef, as the caption might indicate. And the opinion is about one aspect of
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
The owner’s land is a peninsula most of the time, but when Flathead Lake, Montana, rises a few months each year, it needed a bridge to access. So it asked the County “How about a bridge? We will only use it when the water rises.” County said yes, issued a permit.
NIMBY neighbors, however, had
Check this out: our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues (Brian Hodges and Deborah La Fetra we on our Sheetz SCOTUS team), have posted a new scholarly piece on SSRN, “Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: Legislatures Must Comply with the Takings Clause.”
Here’s the Abstract:
For more than 30 years, the Supreme Court
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
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
Note: this is the second of our posts on the recent Supreme Court opinions in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the case in which the unanimous Court held that exactions imposed by legislation are not exempt from the essential nexus (Nollan) and rough proportionality (Dolan) standards. Here’s our first post
A short one from the California Supreme Court. In Romero v. Shih, No. S275023 (Feb. 1, 2024), the court was presented with the question of whether Property Owner A had an implied easement over the driveway of Property Owner B.
The court held that easements may be created by implication, and “if there is
A quick one from the Arizona Supreme Court that isn’t so much a true takings case, but more like “takings adjacent.” In our view, it well illustrates the way that takings arguments can shape how statutes are interpreted, even if there isn’t a taking.
The case — Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC, No.
Be sure to check out this interview (“Rent Control Is a ‘New York Tragedy’“) on Hamodia, with law Professor Richard Epstein.
As you might expect, the interview is full of insights and bon mots. There’s even a reference to the judicial takings case, Stop the Beach Renourishment. And a lot of things
