Administrative law

In Garrett v. Sandersville R.R., No. A26A0274 (Apr. 15, 2026), the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the state’s Public Service Commission’s approval of the railroad’s use of eminent domain to take property for a connector to the main rail line. The court concluded that the taking qualified as a “public use” as that term is defined in Georgia’s eminent domain statute. Although there may be some private benefits, and the spur line may not actually be used by the public, what matters is that the line is available for the public’s use.
Continue Reading Georgia App: We’re Mere Judges Who Must Defer To The PUC On Whether A Taking Is For Public Use

Two or three steps? You decide. A takings case arising from the same locality in Rhode Island that gave us Palazzolo (Westerly, R.I.). In DiBiccari v. Rhode Island, No. 2023-353 (Mar. 10, 2026), the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the owner’s federal takings claim was not ripe because even though the State agency had denied a variance to allow installation of a wastewater system, the owner had not pursued the agency’s administrative appeals process. …
Continue Reading RI: Federal Takings Claim Must Be Ripened By Exhausting State Admin Remedies By Appealing Variance Denial

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…

20180720_150853_HDR
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…