More good takings news, hot off the press.
Before Cedar Point came down last week, we were all set to let you know about the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in South Grande View Dev. Co., Inc. v City of Alabaster, No. 18-14044 (June 21, 2021), in which the court affirmed a jury verdict that
In this post — the first in a series of deeper dives that we’ll be posting about over the next few days about yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, No. 20-107 (June 23, 2021) — we’ll be covering the background of the case, and the heart of the majority
We haven’t had time to read it in detail yet, but here’s the slip opinion in a case we have been following for a long time, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, No. 20-107 (June 23, 2021).
Writing for a six-Justice majority (no one went wobbly!), Chief Justice Roberts concluded that California’s labor regulations, which
A detour from our usual fare today, as we post what now is the final complete case that we participated in before we traded in our private practice hat for public interest law back in February.
In a short (5 page) Summary Disposition Order, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals held that any member of
The facts that compelled the U.S. Court of Appeal to conclude as it did in Yawn v. Dorchester County, No. 20-1584 (June 11, 2011) are pretty straightforward.
In response to a threatened public health viral crisis (no, not COVID, but Zika [remember that one?]), the county decided to spray insecticide. Some areas
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. It’s not exactly a “new” cert petition, but one which we missed when it was filed back in February.
This one comes up via the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit, with the latter vacating the CFC’s award of partial compensation
What’s up with that (sorta) snarky headline, you ask? After all, isn’t the PennEast v. New Jersey case, heard yesterday by the Supreme Court, a real honest-to-goodness eminent domain case about a pipeline?
Doesn’t the transcript show terms like “in rem,” “takings,” “eminent” and “eminent domain” were used a whole lot? Aren’t a lot of
That rail crossing in Chicago
We’ve noted before that gun cases have life of their own, often divorced from strict legal logic. Throw in takings, and you’ve got a recipe for a difficult challenge.
But add to the mix a Supreme Court überlawyer, and maybe your chances go up. Who knows for sure.
We post the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Ivanenko v. Yanykovich, No. 20-7033 (Apr. 23, 2021) more for its interesting fact pattern than the holding (which doesn’t tell us a lot about “takings” since is this is a case under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, but hey, it did ping our “eminent domain” radar).
Here’s the recently-filed cert petition in a case we’ve been following.
Rather than attempt to sum it up, we suggest you read the petition, especially the Questions Presented:
Montana Dakota Utility (hereinafter MDU), a private corporation, employed the power of eminent domain to procure an easement on Vern Behm’s farmland immediately along a pre-existing