Here’s the amici brief of the Cato Institute, the NFIB, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and the Reason Foundation in support of the petitioner/property owner in Horne v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 12-122 (cert. granted. Nov. 20, 2012).
That’s the case in which the Supreme Court is considering whether a property owner
How, as an appellant, do you know you are in trouble? When an opinion starts like this, that’s how:
Although a residential subdivision proposed for construction in a bucolic Rhode Island town never saw the light of day, its ghost continues to haunt the parties. But apparitions rarely have substance, and this one is no
You know how we’re always saying that the provisions in the Takings Clause are “self-executing,” that even in the absence of a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Tucker Act, and section 1983, property owners would still be able to maintain a claim for compensation? Well here’s an article that explains that how that rule was
Confirming yet again that the shopping mall is the focus of California culture, the California Supreme Court in Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food and Commerical Workers Union Local 8, No. S185544 (Dec. 27, 2012), held that a privately-owned walkway fronting a warehouse-type grocery store is a venue for the airing of grievances
That was quick. As we predicted (and urged), the Hawaii Supreme Court today without comment rejected the County of Maui’s application for a writ of certiorari, which asked the court to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals decision in in Leone v. County of Maui, No 29692 (June 22, 2012) (Supreme Court order
We sure wish we could have attended the Cato Institute’s recent Constitution Day program in Washington, D.C., but here’s the next best thing, a video of the presentations on Property Rights, with a review of the recent Sackett and PPL Montana decisions by the Supreme Court, and an update about the state of property rights.
It’s the right of homeless folks in L.A.’s “Skid Row” area to not have their personal belongings seized if they leave them unattended for a while, but we will take what we can get.
In Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, No.11-56253 (Sep. 5, 2012), the Ninth Circuit held:
We conclude that the Fourth
Florida land use and environmental law attorney Jake Cremer has posted the Brief in Opposition in Koontz v. St. Johs River Water Management Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. petition filed May 30, 2012), the case asking whether the Nollan/Dolan nexus and proportionality tests apply to a land-use exaction that takes the form
The ABA Journal reports on yesterday’s screening of Crime After Crime: Tears Flow at Screening of Film on Pro Bono Fight to Free Woman Convicted of Her Abuser’s Murder.
On Thursday, August 2, 2012, at 3:30 p.m., as part of the ABA Annual Meeting, the ABA and the State & Local Government Law Section is sponsoring a free screening of “ Crime After Crime,” the award-winning documentary from director Yoav Potash chronicling two San Francisco Bay Area land use lawyers who volunteer to provide their services to try and help free a woman who has been imprisoned for 20 years. We saw the film last year, and loved it. It was one of the best we have seen in a while:
“Crime” and “land use lawyers” are phrases not usually heard together; in most cases, the worlds of criminal law and land use never intersect, and lawyers for developers and property owners don’t have much occasion to visit the “Attorney’s Room” at the state pen. But in the documentary film Crime After Crime, two land use lawyers including our State and Local Government Law Section colleague Nadia Costa (Vice-Chair of the Section’s Land Use Committee), plunge into that unfamiliar milieu.
In 1983, Deborah Peagler, a woman brutally abused by her boyfriend, was sentenced to 25 years-to-life for her connection to his murder. Twenty years later, as she languished in prison, a California law allowing incarcerated domestic-violence survivors to reopen their cases was passed. Enter a pair of rookie land-use attorneys convinced that with the incontrovertible evidence that existed, they could free Deborah in a matter of months.
More details on the case here. Read my complete review here. Here are the details of the screening:
Location: DePaul University College of Law, 25 E. Jackson Blvd, Chicago, Room 241.
Cost: Free.
CLE Credits: Following the screening, we will be presenting a CLE on “The Cost of Wrongful Convictions” featuring Director Potash, Nadia Costa (one of the lawyers featured in “Crime After Crime”), Craig Watkins (District Attorney, Dallas), and Emily Miller (Better Government Association, Chicago). The panel will be moderated by our SLG Section colleague Donna Frazier.
Hope you can join us if you are attending the Annual Meeting, or are just in Chicago.
Continue Reading ABA Annual Meeting, Chicago: Free Screening Of “Crime After Crime”