Here’s the amici brief we’re filing in an important Public Use case we’ve been following.
In St. Bernard Port, Harbor & Terminal District v. Violet Dock Port, Inc., No. 2017-C-0434 (Jan. 30, 2017), the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the taking by the St. Bernard Port, Harbor, and Terminal District of a Mississippi River docking facility
To lawyers, the word “and” between two clauses in a statute means that the requirements of both clauses must be met (aka “conjunctive”), while the word “or” signifies that either of the requirements are enough (“disjunctive”).
So you might think that when asked to interpret whether a statute that allows pipeline companies to enter land
Honolulu’s homeless problem is a tough nut to crack. There are no easy answers. People have rights, even if that means they have the freedom to live outside. But when a walk out the door of your downtown office becomes an exercise in dodging human waste, poor unfortunates in various stages of mental illness
The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to review a public use case we’ve been following with keen interest, Carousel Farms Metropolitan District, No. 18SC30 (July 2, 2018), one we noted was the “most interesting” such case of 2017.
The Court of Appeals held that the actual purpose of the taking was private, so
In Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Superior Court, No. C085308 (July 2, 2018), there’s no discussion of the inverse condemnation claims brought by property owners against Pacific Gas and Electric for the devastating 2015 Butte wildfire. But since we’re following the progress of all wildfire cases, we thought you might be interested
Here’s a cert petition we’ve been waiting to drop, in a case we’ve been following out of Florida.
In Town of Ponce Inlet v. Pacetta, LLC, No. 5D14-4520 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. June 16, 2017), the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a Lucas takings verdict, concluding the case might not even be ripe
A metro-area transit district condemned a portion of a residential lot for a light-rail line. The property was owned by a LLC, which in turn was owned by a family trust. The condemnor offered $19k as compensation, but the trust thought it was worth a lot more: $280k.
One of the big issues contributing to the
Some good (Dolan, Lucas), some bad (Kelo, Murr), some … not sure (Lingle).
But now, things get interesting.
Let’s just say that we’re not totally convinced this letter from Justice Kennedy announcing his retirement isn’t “fake news,” since it does not list the four factors he considered in deciding
A short, but published, opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
In Archbold-Garrett v. New Orleans, No. 17-30692 (June 22, 2018), the court held that the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment claims (search and seizure, compensation, and procedural due process) were ripe for federal court, even though
In Adams Outdoor Advertising, LP v. City of Madison, No. 2016AP537 (June 19, 2018), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the City’s construction of a bridge next to — but not on — property on which Adams maintained a non-conforming billboard, was not a taking.
There didn’t seem to be much of a dispute