Here’s the property owners’ Brief on the Merits in the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the nature of physical invasion takings, and how permanent a permanent intrusion must be in order to qualify for Loretto and Kaiser Aetna-ish per se treatment.
In Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma, 923 F.3d
As we noted in this post (“CA4 (Over Dissent): No Taking When Maryland Outlawed ‘Rapid Fire Trigger Activators’“), it was likely that a cert petition would follow after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held (over a strong dissent) that it was not a taking when Maryland outlawed previously lawful
A short one from the Florida District Court of Appeal (Second District) on exactions.
More precisely, what is an “exaction.”
In Murphy Auto Group, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Transportation, No. 2d19-1236 (Nov. 20, 2020), the court held that the requirements of Nollan/Dolan (nexus and rough proportionality) apply when the DOT demanded
A short one from the Virginia Supreme Court. In Palmyra Associates, LLC v. Comm’r of Highways, No. 191680 (Dec. 17, 2020), the court upheld the exclusion of evidence about a property’s “before” condition in a partial take case, concluding that the proffered evidence of the property’s development potential was too speculative. Or, more accurately
Here’s a big development in a case we’ve been following for a while (and in which we filed an amicus brief in support of the prevailing property owner).
In DW Aina Lea Dev., LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm’n, No. SCCQ-19-156 (Dec. 17, 2020), the unanimous Hawaii Supreme Court held that the
We’re taking a slight detour today from our usual fare, to cover a case in which we represented the petitioner that involves effective assistance of counsel. Appellate counsel. It’s a post-conviction relief case and not takings, but if you are interested in appellate practice, read on.
In Villados v. State of Hawaii, No. SCWC-15-0000111
You know what SCOTUS nerds want for Christmas? These words, in a federal court of appeals opinion:
We are aware that our decision conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s recent holding in Sierra Club v. Trump. That case involved a parallel challenge to the Government’s use of § 2808 funds to build the border wall.
Here’s the Reply in Support of what we think is a very worthy cert petition, and which responds to the recently-filed BIO.
For the background of the case, check out this post (“What Constitutes a Loss“). The property owner has also summarized the situation thusly in its petition:
The State of
Here’s the State of Hawaii’s Brief in Opposition in a case we’ve been following for what seems like forever.
Check it out. The State waived response, but after a whole bunch of amici filed briefs in support of a cert grant (ours included), at least one of the Justices wanted to
Today, Friday, November 13, 2020, is the day that the Supreme Court is scheduled to decide whether to decide a case we’ve been following for a long time (and one in which we filed an amicus brief urging the Court to take up the case).
In Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma, 923