In this recent decision, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that when a condemnation is invalidated a court — but the condemnor has, by quick-take, already built the project for which it (wrongly) took the property — the owner is not limited to an inverse condemnation remedy (compensation), but may also bring a
Fed Cir (unpub.): Feds Not Liable For Taking When Wyld Stallyns Drink Your Milkshake
OK, we get that law is a serious business and that one should never make light of others’ situations. Each person’s claim is important to them, at the very least.
But after reading today’s Federal Circuit opinion (unpublished, nonprecedential) in Bench Creek Ranch, LLC v. United States, No. 20-2151 (May 7, 2021), we couldn’t
Fla App Doubles Down On That Weird Property Isn’t “Property” Thing
We’re hoping that someone can explain the Florida District Court of Appeal’s recent opinion in Bondar v. Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony, No. 4D19-2118 (May 5, 2021) in a way that makes sense other than the old apocryphal tale of “I don’t know why we do things this way, except that we’ve always done
New L Rev Article: Knick Won’t Mean Much Until Federal Courts Get Over “Strong Distate, If Not Outright Contempt” For Land Use Matters
R.S. Radford’s most-recent article, Knick and the Elephant in the Courtroom: Who Cares Least About Property Rights? in the latest issue of the Texas A&M Journal of Property Law, should be next on your to-read list.
Here’s the summary of the article:
Throughout the thirty-four-year history of Williamson County, one fact was taken for
Ill App (unpub, unfortunately) Strikes Down Taking For Road To Be Owned By The Public
What’s this, a court invalidating an attempted taking because it isn’t necessary? What gives, Appellate Court of Illinois?
Well, in City of West Chicago v. Pietrobon, No. 2-20-0174 (Apr. 28, 2021) (unpub.), the court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the taking of a strip of the owner’s property might qualify as a future
Listen (Or Read) As SCOTUS Hears Arguments In A (Sorta) Eminent Domain Case
What’s up with that (sorta) snarky headline, you ask? After all, isn’t the PennEast v. New Jersey case, heard yesterday by the Supreme Court, a real honest-to-goodness eminent domain case about a pipeline?
Doesn’t the transcript show terms like “in rem,” “takings,” “eminent” and “eminent domain” were used a whole lot? Aren’t a lot of
New Cert Petition (Clement): Making It Illegal To Keep High-Capacity Magazines Declared Contraband Is A Taking
That rail crossing in Chicago
We’ve noted before that gun cases have life of their own, often divorced from strict legal logic. Throw in takings, and you’ve got a recipe for a difficult challenge.
But add to the mix a Supreme Court überlawyer, and maybe your chances go up. Who knows for sure.
Destruction Of Ukrainian’s Property By Ukraine Not Within FSIA’s Expropriation Exception
We post the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Ivanenko v. Yanykovich, No. 20-7033 (Apr. 23, 2021) more for its interesting fact pattern than the holding (which doesn’t tell us a lot about “takings” since is this is a case under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, but hey, it did ping our “eminent domain” radar).
New Public Use Cert Petition: Overrule Kelo!
Here’s the recently-filed cert petition in a case we’ve been following.
Rather than attempt to sum it up, we suggest you read the petition, especially the Questions Presented:
Montana Dakota Utility (hereinafter MDU), a private corporation, employed the power of eminent domain to procure an easement on Vern Behm’s farmland immediately along a pre-existing
Your Friday (And Weekend) Reading: Merrill On Compensation; Epstein On Valuation
Two very interesting law review articles (essays) by well-known property experts are now available in the Notre Dame Law Review:
- Thomas Merrill, The Compensation Constraint and the Scope of the Takings Clause, 96 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1421 (2021). Professor Merrill asks “whether the established methods for determining just compensation can shed light