We’re on our third day at the 2018 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Conference in Charleston, SC, and as usual, we’re having our headline presentations by takings guru Michael Berger (pictured above), who is updating us on the most interesting and important cases of the past year, and Jim Burling, who will
In Cappel v. Nebraska Dep’t of Natural Resources, No. S-16-1037 (Dec. 22, 2017), the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded the Department’s notices to Cappel pursuant to an interstate water compact which closed off his land’s ability to draw surface water from the Republican River for irrigating his crops was neither a physical nor regulatory taking.
This photo of the view from the lectern at the start of the day
proves we really were in the room and not distracted by all the distractions
possible in Las Vegas
Here are the materials and cases which I spoke about earlier today at the CLE International Eminent Domain Conference in Las Vegas. I
The title of West Virginia Lottery v. A-1 Amusement, Inc., No. 16-1047 (Nov. 13, 2017) alone may not give you an indication that this is a takings case, but yes, it’s a takings case.
As the title might indicate, it’s a case involving the state-run lottery and video lottery machines. If we’re reading
The Georgia Supreme Court’s analysis in Diversified Holdings, LLP v. City of Suwanee, No. S17A1140 (Nov. 2, 2017) reminded us of that old trope from logic, “no true Scotsman.”
According to a completely reliable source (Wikipedia):
No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a
What do takings mavens think about when they hear “New York City” and “takings?” Probably the granddaddy case of them all, Penn Central. Or maybe Courtesy Sandwich Shop, or Loretto. All good ones, landmarks.
But this post isn’t about a visit to the sites of those cases (not to worry, we’ll get
The Connecticut Appeals Court’s opinion in Stones Trail, LLC v. Town of Weston, No. AC 38078 (July 18, 2017), does not offer a lot in terms of substance — it holds that a property owner’s regulatory takings claim based on the Town’s approval of what the owner thought was a subdivision was not ripe
The Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, apparently has a problem of unregulated cemeteries. Who knew?
So it did what local government do when they think they have a problem, it passed a law. That law, Ordinance 12-12-20-001, required owners of all cemeteries, public or private, to maintain them. The ordinance also contained two troublesome provisions.
You heard that right. After the Michigan Court of Appeals’ recent ruling in Lanzi v. Township of St. Clair, No. 329795 (May 23, 2017), you should consider skipping the usual Williamson County step of filing your federal takings claims in state court.
In that case, property owners sued the township after the township’s sewage
We all have had those moments, haven’t we?
Today’s linked story is more land-usey than eminent domain-ey, but still interesting for you condemnation lawyers on the line (besides, condemnation lawyers really do have to know land use law, don’t they?).
Honolulu can is a tough place to be, with our status as one of the