Photo of Robert H. Thomas

Robert H. Thomas

Darby

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.

The federal government has asked (and been granted), an extension of time in which to file a cert petition in the Darby case.

That’s the one in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit allowed a claim that the federal government is

2011-05-14_16-31-39_422

Who likes paying a lot for prescription medications? Anyone?

Oregon sure didn’t like it, and it was going to do something about it. In 2018, it adopted a statute the “Prescription Drug Price Transparency Act,” which requires manufacturers to report to the State information about costs, revenues, and prices of certain prescription drugs. The Act

Texas court of appeals fifth

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following

Recall that a couple of months ago, the court of appeals held that the challengers were likely to succeed in their challenge to Dallas’s short-term rental ban. The case was up on appeal from a preliminary injunction, so there wasn’t a lot in that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs5vUfddkT8u0026t=1s

Every year at this time, it seems, we realize once again that as you get older, you overlook birthdays. Time speeds up, or maybe slows down. Very Proustian.

Thus, it occurred to us only yesterday that that this blog’s “birthday” was looming and we almost let it slip by without notice.

It hardly seems

AZ unclaimed

Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Garza v. Woods, No. 24-1064 (Aug. 25, 2025). 

The court concluded that Arizona’s abandoned property statute is not a taking, because the State was not exercising or claiming some kind of ownership of abandoned property (as in those cases where abandoned

Here’s one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, involving ERISA (yikes!), which is the comprehensive federal regulatory framework for employer-provided pension plans, and takings.

In King v. United States, No. 23-1956 (Aug. 8, 2025), pensioners challenged Congress’s 2014 reduction of benefits as a taking, alleging both physical and regulatory theories.

If your brain goes full mobius strip when trying to figure out the California Court of Appeal’s rationale in Anaheim Mobile Estates, LLC v. State of California, No. G063421 (Aug. 13, 2025), you are not alone. 

Here’s the bottom line in this facial challenge to a California statute that limits mobilehome parks located