We’re about to get underway with the fall semester at William and Mary Law School, where we’re again teaching an upper-division course, Eminent Domain and Property Rights.
We’ve more than doubled the size of last year’s enrollment, so it looks like the word is getting out. We cover not only eminent domain and
Here’s the amici brief we’re filing today on behalf of the Owners’ Counsel of America, New Jersey property owners subject to natural gas pipeline takings, the Institute for Justice, and the Cato Institute, in support of a cert petition which is challenging the federal courts of appeals which have upheld giving prejudgment possession of property
You remember Samuel Beckett’s classic absurdist play, Waiting for Godot. Two guys spend the entire time waiting for another guy (you know who) to show up, but he never does. There are nearly endless interpretations of its meaning (if any), but everyone pretty much agrees that it is at least about the nature of
Synchronicity (Jung, not The Police). Serendipity. Lattice of coincidence. Whatever you call it, sometimes things seem to come in waves.
So it seems with the statue of limitations for inverse and regulatory takings claims this week. We had not dealt with the issue for a while. Radio silence. Then boom! The
Usually, when we’re scanning the daily email from the Federal Circuit for takings decisions of interest, we look for “United States” as the defendant, and our eyes glaze over the other cases on the court’s docket such as patent matters. But today, we were rewarded: a takings issue in a patent matter.
Yes, this is detail from the Supreme Court’s front door.
This is the first in what will be a short series of five posts with thoughts on the landmark decision in Knick. In this installment, a crash course in the extensive doctrinal background necessary to understand why the Knick Court did what it did. Here
Here’s a case that’s pending in the New York Court of Appeals that has been briefed and is awaiting argument.
In Natural Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. Schueckler, No. 17-02021 (Nov. 9, 2018), the Appellate Division answered this question:
This appeal therefore presents a novel question of condemnation law: can a corporation involuntarily expropriate
On one hand, there’s nothing really new in the Hawaii Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Hawaii Electric Light Co., No. SCOT-17-630 (May 10, 2019), because the court has previously told us the answers to each the component questions in the case:
The bulk of the Indiana Court of Appeals’ opinion in Grdinich v. Plan Comm’n for the Town of Hebron, No. 18A-PL-1050 (Feb. 28, 2019) is devoted to details of land use law, specifically exhaustion of administrative remedies. If that floats your boat, we’ll let you read it.
What caught our eye was at the
A short update from the west coast: the California Supreme Court late last week denied discretionary review in the case in which a California utility was arguing that it cannot be liable under that state’s version of inverse condemnation because the utility, unlike a governmental entity, cannot automatically spread the cost of any judgment to
