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.”
They Say It’s Your Birthday, Well It’s Our Birthday Too, Yeah! Entering Our Eighteenth Year
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
S Dakota: Only Way To Read Precondemnation Entry Statute Constitutionally Is Allowing “minimally invasive superficial inspections” and “minor soil disturbances”
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:
New Cert Petition: When State Law Bars Owner From Challenging A Taking, Can Federal Court Abstain?
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
PA: No Funny Business – It Isn’t A Public Purpose For Railroad To Take Property To Benefit Single Customer
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
Colorado App: Executory Contracts Admissible To Prove Value Of Condemned Property
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
Back To School For Dirt Law @ William & Mary, Season VII
Yes, the mysterious ducks remain — and seem to have multiplied.
It’s that time of the year again. Fall’s-a-coming, and that means that starting today, we’re back at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia to lead two courses:
- Eminent Domain and Property Rights (W&M is one of the few law schools
New Cert Petition: Can An Owner Whose Property Has Been Taken Sue A State Directly Under The Fifth Amendment?
Check this out, a recently-filed cert petition asking whether, in order to sue for compensation for a taking, the government must first affirmatively provide a cause of action (an issue recently left unanswered by the U.S. Supreme Court). That’s an issue we’ve been following closely (our outfit recently filed this cert petition also).
This
Lawprof Somin: “Federal Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Takings Lawsuit Against the CDC’s Covid-Era Eviction Moratorium”
Be sure to read the entirety of Lawprof Ilya Somin’s recent post on Volokh, “Federal Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Takings Lawsuit Against the CDC’s Covid-Era Eviction Moratorium.”
There, he analyzes the Federal Circuit’s recent 2-1 opinion in Darby Dev. Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 22-1929 (Aug. 7, 2024) (we
Michigan: “few rights and legal principles have greater legal, historical, and constitutional pedigrees than the protection against uncompensated takings”
Here’s the latest in the solved-but-not-quite-solved issue of whether the government can keep the surplus which remains after a tax-foreclosure sale (see Tyler v. Hennepin County), the Michigan Supreme Court’s opinion in Schafer v. Kent County, No. 164975 (July 29, 2024), where the court concluded that its earlier decision in Rafaeli v. Oakland