The caption of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Purgatory Recreation I, LLC v. United States, No. 24-1241 (Oct. 21, 2025), and the fact that the plaintiff raised a takings claim, should give you some idea where this is heading.
After all, when the defendant in a takings claim
When an opinion starts off with “[t]his zoning/inverse condemnation case revolves around the availability of parking…” you kinda know, whatever the issues might be, that the court isn’t likely headed in a good direction for the claimant.
That’s exactly how the Supreme Court of South Carolina began The Gulfstream Cafe, Inc. v. Georgetown County
Is “personal” property (as contrasted with real estate), or property that is used in commercial dealings, not “private property” is protected from uncompensated takings by the Fifth Amendment?
That’s what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit appeared to conclude in Green Room LLC v. State of Wyoming, No. 24-853 (Oct. 27
This past week we were busy with the 22d Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference at the William and Mary Law School.
Here’s the text of the remarks which I prepared for the session on “Public Safety, Private Property, and Just Compensation.” Note: because of time, I truncated what I planned on saying and kept
You’ve all heard the phrase “cut out the middleman” in advertising or crafty dealmaking. Deal directly and realize a savings, or somehow get a better bargain.
To our eyes, it looks like that’s what the New York legislature might have had in mind when it amended its Medicaid statutes to cut out “a
A short one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which asks: when the government is holding your abandoned property for you, do you have to ask for it to return it to you before you can bring a takings claim?
In Dillow v. Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No.
An interesting dirt law decision from north of the border in a case we’ve been following.
In Kosicki v. City of Toronto, No. 40908 (Sep. 19, 2025), the Supreme Court of Canada held that the usual common law rule of “no adverse possession against the government” didn’t govern, and permitted a private owner
As part of the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference being held next week at the William and Mary Law School, the student-run Real Estate Law Society is producing a very interesting program that offers a look back on Kelo v. City of New London, in this that case’s twentieth year.
We’re going to
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is the latest court to wade in (or more accurately, re-wade in) to what we call the SWAT Takings issue.
The logic is sound: under a governmental power (police power), the government (SWAT) has physically invaded (deprived the owner of an essential stick of private property, the right to exclude) a home (private property), for public use (police apprehending suspects is a good thing), triggering the obligation to spread the burden of this public good to the entire public (Armstrong).
Continue Reading CA7: No Taking For SWAT Destroying Property While Executing Valid Warrant
In Witherspoon v. Ince, No. 24-6194 (Oct. 9, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a property owner who alleged that Oklahoma’s system of private takings — where the state authorizes private parties to use eminent domain to take what looks like an easement by necessity over a neighbor’s