Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. This morning, in this Order, the Supreme Court denied cert in two cases which seemed to have a good chance at a grant, on two pressing issues which have divided lower courts, the physical occupation in tenancies (aka Yee), and the nature of the
Today’s must-read, a (very) recent article by our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague John Groen, published in the Touro Law Review, “Takings, Original Meaning, and Applying Property Law Principles to Fix Penn Central.”
With a title like that, who could resist? Here’s the Abstract:
Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting
As we express our thanks today to all those who have served, here are some of our previous posts which feature military-related topics:
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to review the Appellate Division’s decision in Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v. New Jersey.
That’s the case where several hospitals challenged a New Jersey statute which requires hospitals to take all patients regardless of their ability
Justice Sutherland asks:
whadda mean, you don’t like apartments?
Check out this uncharacteristically-lengthy opinion from New York’s Appellate Division (and entire 6 pages!).
In Bennett v. Troy City Council, No. CV023-0709 (Oct. 24, 2024), the court invalidated a municipal upzoning (from single-family residential to Planned Development — which would permit apartments) because the city’s
Mr. Otis would be a P’Nut fan.
Our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague and search-and-seizure expert Daniel Woislaw quickly responded to the cultural zeitgeist and looked into l‘affaire P’nut le Squirrel with his keen legal eye.
That’s the case in which an internet narc dropped dime on the owner of a pet squirrel, resulting in
Charles McFarland, arguing.
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following closely (and disclosure: our firm filed an amicus brief in the Texas Supreme Court).
In The Commons of Lake Houston, Ltd. v. City of Houston, the Texas Court of Appeals held that the city could not be liable for a taking
Here’s the latest takings cert petition, in a case involving a California county’s refusal to rezone property back to its former zoning to allow residential development. The only uses permitted on the property presently are “scientific research facilities uses” and hiking trails. Or, at the petition puts it, “only public, park-like uses.” Pet. at
We like it when courts include photos and maps.
The Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Indiana v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc., No. 245-PL-118 (Oct. 31, 2024) isn’t all that surprising. After all, the State’s eminent domain action did not take access to the undeveloped property, and the owner was not entitled to
The latest issue of the University of Chicago Law Review has this student-authored piece that is worth your time reading. “Guns and the Right to Exclude: Saving Guns-at-Work Laws from Cedar Point‘s Per Se Takings Rule,” 91 U. Chi. L. Rev. 2047 (2024).
Here’s the Abstract:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Cedar