The work of the courts goes on, and as long as there’s stuff to report, we’ll keep reporting as usual.
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an important takings decision in a case and issue we’ve been following for what seems like forever. In Anaheim Gardens, L.P. v. United
As long-time readers know, we often kvetch about the way many courts ignore the Palazzolo rule that simply because someone obtains property subject to preexisting restrictions on use does not preclude them automatically from raising takings claims. See here, here, here, and here, for example. More about the Palazzolo case here, including
Here’s one for our Hawaii folks, in case you all are curious about the origins of the analytical framework which courts use to review the legality of measures taken by the authorities in the name of “public health” that have an impact on the uses of private property.
As far as we can tell, The
US 50 in Nevada – the “Loneliest Road”
Here’s the cert petition which we and our Nevada colleague Luke Busby filed today, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review this Question Presented:
Conflicting with Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982), the Supreme Court of Nevada concluded that to prevail on
Torromeo Industries owned a 12-acre parcel zoned “Industrial.” Two buildings — one a home, the other a 4,000 square foot industrial building — were on the land. Sole access to the property way by a private driveway along the 149 foot frontage of the parcel. Industrial zoning has a minimum lot size of 80,000 square
This morning, in this order, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in the Carousel Farms case.
That’s it, that’s all we’ve got.
The current headlines — and a couple of inquiries from colleagues and clients — got us to thinking about government power in times of crisis and the tension between that power and property and other individual rights.
On one hand, court decisions going back over the centuries have told us that courts are reluctant to
Here’s the cert petition we’ve been eagerly awaiting in a case we’ve been following about Seattle’s rewriting of the traditional lessor-lessee relationship.
The petition arose out of facial takings and due process challenges to Seattle’s “first in time” rule for residential leasing. The city adopted an ordinance requiring owners to rent to the first tenant
This just in. In Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 17-17504 (Mar. 17, 2020), a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a regulatory takings claim which the District Court threw out for not being ripe under Williamson County‘s “state procedures”
For those looking for ways to productively occupy your stay-home-from-school kids the next couple of weeks, We’re offering online CLE’s on takings. Don’t let their time go to waste, have ’em learn property and condemnation law!
We volunteer for the Penn Central module. Who’s with us?!
