A short one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
In Couser v. Shelby County, No. 23-3758 (June 5, 2025), the court held that local ordinances which were adopted after a pipeline company announced plans to build a project to move carbon dioxide across several states (and presumably designed to make
Here’s the latest, a student-authored note, “‘Background Principles’ and the General Law of Property,” 138 Harv. L. Rev. 2071 (2025).
Here’s the argument:
Background principles are a strong medicine. When a court analyzes a takings claim, it must first identify the property interest at issue before deciding the more complex, discretionary question of
Check out the latest episode of the Lunch Hour Podcast, featuring lawprof Donald Kochan, “Property Rights, Regulation, and the Rule of Law.”
Here’s the description:
In this episode of The Lunch Hour with Federal Newswire, host Andrew Langer sits down with Professor Donald Kochan of the Antonin Scalia Law School at
In Bojorquez v. Florida, No. SC2023-0095 (June 5, 2025), the Florida Supreme Court reached a decision that a lot of other courts have reached: taxi licenses are not “private property” and therefore there’s no taking when the government does something to affect the value of those licenses. But this one has some interesting
Knocking on the Supreme Court’s door
Earlier this week in this Order, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review four property rights cert petitions (three of which were ours):
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.
In this Order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied en banc review of a 2-1 panel opinion which concluded that a complaint challenging the CDC’s Co-10 residential eviction moratorium properly pleaded a physical takings claim even though the Supreme Court
Check out this recently-published student note: Cameron P. Hellerman, Misusing Eminent Domain: Pretextual Takings For A Traditional Public Use, 93 Fordham L. Rev. 2229 (2025).
The article considers the Second Circuit’s decision in Brinkmann v. Town of Southhold, about what we call “spite takings” — those in which the government’s stated public purpose
In Muskingum County Convention Facilities Auth. v. Barnes Advertising Corp., No. CT2024-0134 (May 22, 2025), the Ohio Court of Appeal upheld the Authority’s taking of two billboard easements where the stated purpose was for a “new facility serving the City of Zanesville and Muskingum County community[.]” Slip op. at 3.
OK, but what
Mark your calendars — or better yet, register now — for the 8th Annual Texas Eminent Domain Conference (Houston), August 14-15, 2025.
We’ve attended in the past, and can report from first-hand experience that it is a great conference, chock-full of the information you need for eminent domain practice in the Lone Star State.
Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Warner v. City of Marathon, No. 2024-10901 (May 27, 2025) is unpublished, we’re posting it here because, as the title notes, this one might be the last victim of Williamson County‘s “state procedures” requirement.
As frequent flyers know, between 1985 and