What’s going on in the Sixth Circuit? First, there was this opinion in Howard v. Macomb County, which in our view really missed the Knick vibe and resurrected the overruled Williamson County “state procedures” requirement.
Now there’s a doubling down, OPV Partners, LLC v. City of Lansing, No. 24-2035 (July 9, 2025).
The bottom-line holding in the U.S. Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in Appalachian Voices v. Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n, No. 24-1094 (June 6, 2025), that FERC was ok when it allowed a pipeline company an extension of time to complete the project isn’t all that surprising. And indeed, it isn’t all that interesting except
We’ve had this one in our queue for a bit, but it seems now is a good time to lay out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in McIntosh v. Madisonville, No. 24-5383 (Jan. 21, 2025). After all, the Due Process Clause seems to be in the news a lot
Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s recent opinion in Knellinger v. Young, No. 23-1018 (Apr. 11, 2025).
It’s worth reading because the court doesn’t fall into the common trap of concluding that although an owner need not exhaust administrative remedies before asserting a takings claim, he nonetheless doesn’t have
Nothing to do with the case, beyond the owner’s name.
But c’mon, its ABBA.
Ms. Money and her spouse own a home in San Marcos, Texas. That home is in a historic district.
But it turns out that some of that history isn’t pretty: one of the previous owners was “notoriously associated with the
The only courthouse we know where the Supreme Court
is below the Court of Appeals (SJC on the second floor,
appellate court on the third)
A brief one from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
In Attorney General v. Town of Milton, No. SJC-13580 (Jan. 8, 2025), the court rejected a challenge to
The facts in D.A. Realestate Inv., LLC v. City of Norfolk, No. 23-1863 (Jan. 16, 2025), a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, are fairly sympathetic. And the opinion starts off with a tantalizing quote:
In 1761, Massachusetts lawyer James Otis exclaimed “one of the most essential branches
Check out the opinion of the Court of Federal Claims in Nix v. United States, No. 23-704C (Dec. 11, 2024). Fascinating stuff.
We post it here not because it breaks new ground, but due to the subject matter of the lawsuit: the alleged taking of a film that captures (in part) the assassination of
We thought this was going to be about sticks.
We ain’t gonna pretend we understand cryptocurrency or blockchain. I’m just a caveman. Your world frightens and confuses me!
And there’s a lot there to confuse us in the U.S. Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in Van Loon v. Dep’t of the Treasury, No.
Today we have a guest post by New York colleague Jennifer Polovetsky, who writes about the intersection of administrative law (Chevron deference) and public use in eminent domain.Thanks to Jennifer (and to the New York Law Journal) for allowing us to republish her intriguing piece.
_____________________________
Is Judicial Deference to Government Agency Decisions