The DC Court of Appeals’ (note: not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) opinion in Gordon v. District of Columbia, No. 20-CV-0568 (Feb. 15, 2024), presents a good cross-section of property rights issues. Not a good outcome on property rights issues, mind you.
If nothing else, be sure to check out
Today’s the day, 191 years ago, when — a mere 5 days after oral arguments — the U.S. Supreme Court issued its (in)famous opinion in Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833).
Generations of law students study this one in their Con Law classes, and it
The historic Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Here’s the latest in a somewhat strange case we’ve been following about what happens after a court determines that a taking lacks a public use — but the condemnor goes ahead and just seizes the property anyway.
The Town of Apex, North Carolina, sought to take an easement
If you dream such dreams as this photo, read on.
My law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation, is on the hunt for lawyer to join our Property Rights group (yours truly is the Director of Property Rights Litigation, so you will be working with me and the other takings and con law mavens in our practice).
“No need to ask, he’s a smooth operator…”
On Tuesday, January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case we’ve been following closely because it involves the fundamental limitation on the sovereign power to take private property. In our system, the sovereign indeed has the power to take private property against the
As 2023 comes to a close, here are a few of the decisions that we wanted to blog about, but didn’t have the time.
You remember that longstanding trope: that matters of land use are “local” issues, and thus in civil rights claims involving a state or local government interfering with the right of property federal courts should avoid adjudication until the government has had every chance to do the right thing (even where it is patently obvious that
“No need to ask, he’s a smooth operator…”
Here’s the amicus brief we just filed in a case we’ve (obviously) been paying close attention to.
This is Devillier v. Texas, the case in which the Supreme Court is considering what does the it mean when it describes the Just Compensation Clause as “self-executing?”
Check this out, our law firm colleague Joshua Thompson talks about regulatory takings, and his big Supreme Court victory in Cedar Point Nursery.
If you are reading this blog, you already know what that means. Regulatory takings. Bundle of sticks. Penn Central (bleh), and right to exclude. Here’s the description of the program:
In
“Erasing the Black Spot“ from WHRO on Vimeo.
As we first noted here, Hampton University and WHRO recently produced a live program on “Erasing the Black Spot – How Virginia Universities Have Disrupted Black Neighborhoods.” We couldn’t make it in person, but watched the live-stream.
Now, as we hoped, the recorded