42 U.S.C. § 1983 | Civil Rights

EM Hauulaeminent_domain_abuse

Here’s the Complaint, filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Honolulu in which a windward Oahu property owner challenges the City and County of Honolulu’s removal of her protest signs on her property. 

The rub? She’s protesting the City’s condemnation of her property back in 2010. Her complaint alleges that the city “neither owns

Here is a deeper look at the two lawsuits filed lastweek in U.S. District Court in San Francisco against the City ofRichmond, California, for the city’s Mortgage Resolution Partners-backed plan to condemn underwater mortgages, specifically those held by out-of-state securitizedbonds, residential mortgage-backed securitization (RMBS) trusts. The first Complaint was brought by Wells Fargo and a

What’s this, a federal court actually allowing a federal Fifth Amendment claim to be litigated in federal court? Why that’s as rare as hen’s teeth, although it shouldn’t be

That’s the ruling of the Fourth Circuit in Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head, No. 12-1538 (July 25, 2013), which reversed the district

It’s easy to report when you win a case, not so easy when you … don’t (at least not yet).

That’s the result in this stage of the Hawaii reapportionment case, as yesterday, a three-judge U.S. District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and entered summary judgment for the state defendants. We

Here’s the Brief in Opposition filed recently in City of Los Angeles v. Lavan, No 12-1073 (cert. petition filed Feb. 28, 2013), the case in which the Ninth Circuit in a 2-1 panel decision held that the city could not presume that property owned by homeless people in the Skid Row area was abandoned

If you haven’t figured out by now, we like takings claims. We really do. But here’s one where we think the Third Circuit reached the right result when it concluded that there was no compensable taking. National Amusements, Inc. v. Borough of Palmyra, No. 12-1630 (May 9, 2013).

Why? Because when there may be

Here’s the opinion of the California Court of Appeal (1st District) in an appeal we’ve been following, Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda, No. A30874 (May 9, 2013), affirming that the County of Alameda is liable for a temporary regulatory taking under Penn Central, and awarding the property owners nearly three-quarters of a