As we wrote in this post, the federal government”s position in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647, which is set for reargument next month, has us a bit perplexed.
On one hand, the SG’s bottom line is good: property owners can bring their takings claims against local governments in federal as
Here’s the supplemental letter brief, filed today on behalf of Rose Mary Knick, as requested by the Supreme Court.
Two more — by the Township and by the SG — to be filed today as well. We shall post those as they become available.
Earlier this week, we spoke to Howard Mansfield, author of the recently-published book “The Habit of Turning the World Upside Down – Our Belief in Property and the Cost of That Belief.”
His book is about property, property rights, and how these ideas are processed by the American psyche. But instead of
Here’s the Petition for Review we’ve been waiting to drop since last week’s ruling by a California Court of Appeal declining to review the California PUC’s decision to turn down the electric company’s request for a rate increase to cover the compensation and damages that it must pay as the result of a southern California
They’re going back, to reargue the case with a full contingent of justices. In the January oral argument calendar published yesterday, the Supreme Court gave us the date and time:
Wednesday, January 16, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.
We will be there, and will bring you our thoughts.
A unanimous opinion from the Supreme Court, which can only mean one thing: a narrowly-drawn opinion that doesn’t resolve much.
But we’re grateful anyway, because the opinion is one that appreciates the plight of property owners whose land is subject to being designated as “critical habitat” under the Endangered Species Act.
Intervenor Center for Biological
Following the announcement that GM will be closing its Detroit-area Hamtramck assembly plant (originally a Cadillac plant), comes the reminder that it wasn’t supposed to be that way. This was the area, after all, condemned for “economic development” in the infamous Poletown case.
But as the Detroit Free Press reported in “GM’s Hamtramck
With registration for the 2019 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference in Palm Springs well underway, we thought it would be a good time to post up some of the materials from this year’s Charleston conference.
In “Alternative Dispute Resolution in Condemnation Cases: An Eminently Agreeable Solution,” an article in
And belong to the owners of the mineral estate, at least according to two of three judges on a Ninth Circuit panel, applying Montana property law.
Update: our New York colleague Mike Rikon has posted a much better summary of the case and the court’s rationale here.
Here’s one person’s common sense view of quick-take-by-another-name (federal courts’ Rule 65 preliminary injunctions in Natural Gas Act takings). A topic we’re written about and briefed lately. Spot on.