In case you have been following along, you can take these four cases off your watch list:
- Leone: Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that holding property that has no present use in the hope that someday in the future the government might rescind the use-restrictive regulation, is “investment use,” and therefore no taking.
- Kelleher: Palazzolo revisited – if the owner purchased the property with the allegedly restrictive regulation already in place, does the owner lack investment-backed expectations of use?
- Colony Cove: Ninth Circuit voided a jury verdict in a Penn Central takings case in favor of the property owner, concluding that mere cash losses (even though the loss was millions of dollars) was not enough to support the verdict, because the overall value of the property didn’t decline substantially.
- St. Bernard Parish: The MR-GO case. The Federal Circuit concluded the Government cannot be liable for a taking for inaction.
We thought a couple of these had a chance. Onward and upward!