Regular readers know that in addition to our focus on Fifth Amendment property rights, we’re also looking at the Fourth Amendment as a vehicle that protects and promotes property rights.
In that vein, here’s a forthcoming article that is worth reading,”The Benefits of the Fourth Amendment’s Property-Rights Baseline,” by lawprof Nicholas Alden Kahn-Fogel.
A frequent vibe in cases where a member of the public asks a court to compel a local government to do something about an undesired land use (i.e., “the city should stop my neighbor from illegally renting their property,” or “the police should remove the pop-up unlicensed food stand on the sidewalk in
We don’t see any free public education here.
Some old-school property “sticks” analysis from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Zeven v. Jones, No. 23-35438 (Aug. 23, 2024), worth checking out.
The Idaho Constitution has a “free common schools” clause:
The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly
In this Order, the Michigan Supreme Court declined to consider a case which challenges the Michigan governor’s Co-19 shutdown executive orders, which, in the words of the dissenting Justices, reached “nearly every aspect of life in our state.”
There have been a lot of cases asserting that Co-19 shutdowns are takings, with most (
As we hinted at a couple of weeks ago, we have some good — nay, great — news: the Eminent Domain Podcast, retired earlier this year by its originator Clint Schumacher, is back with a new host and a slightly new title: “Come and Take It: The Eminent Domain Podcast.”
Every year at this time, it seems, we realize once again that as you get older, you overlook birthdays. Time speeds up, or maybe slows down. Very Proustian. Thus, it occurred to us only yesterday that that this blog’s “birthday” was looming and we almost let it slip by without notice.
It hardly seems like
This would not be authorized.
Here’s the latest in an issue that found new vitality after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cedar Point affirming that government-authorized physical entry to private property is presumptively a taking.
This is the “precondemnation entry” issue in eminent domain which several courts have addressed:
Here’s the latest takings cert petition. This one seeks review of the Seventh Circuit’s affirming the district court’s sua sponte abstaining from considering a property owner’s challenge to a Wisconsin municipality’s exercise of eminent domain.
The court concluded that federal courts could — but shouldn’t — consider the owner’s public use challenge
It is worth your time to check out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Middle District)’s decision in Wolfe v. Reading Blue Mountain & Northern RR Co. No. J-10A-2024 (Aug. 20, 2024).
The court invalidated an exercise of eminent domain by a railroad, concluding the taking was not for a public purpose because it was intended
We appreciate it when courts include photos and maps in opinions.
A quick one from the Colorado Court of Appeals on an issue of first impression in that state.
In City of Westminster v. R. Dean Hawn Interests, No. 23CA0315 (Aug. 1, 2024), the court concluded “for the first time, that an executory contract