Back to Knick for a bit. Our colleague Dwight Merriam has penned a response to a recent op-ed by U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D – RI).
The good senator, if you weren’t aware, was also the guy who argued and lost the Palazzolo case all the way back in 2001. Apparently, he’s still sore about
Here’s the first post-Knick property owner victory. That was quick!
Now before you get too excited, this is a GVR (“grant, vacate, remand”) in which the Court, having decided Knick, granted the pending petition, vacated the judgment by the Ninth Circuit, and “REMANDED for further consideration in light of Knick v. Township of Scott
We’ve resisted for as long as we can.
Here’s our take at telling the Williamson County and Knick story, 100% in memes.
Why, you may rightly ask?
Well, it started with our Knick amicus brief, which included a meme that we thought captured well the injustice of property owners being prohibited by Williamson
Eminent domain lawyers know that even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the property owner in Kelo, it acknowledged that there was a (slight?) hope in some cases where the condemnor’s stated public use or purposes is actually “pretext” to private benefit.
Pretext may be present in at least three situations: (1) when eminent
Here’s the cert petition in a case we’ve been following.
In Guerin v. Fowler, 899 F,3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2018), a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that Washington state officials’ failure to return daily interest that was allegedly skimmed from the plaintiffs’ state-managed retirement accounts could be a taking.
The panel rejected
Here’s the article, recently published in the UMKC Law Review with thoughts on Murr v. Wisconsin, the case about the “denominator” issue in regulatory takings cases.
We won’t get into it in detail (if you are interested, you can read the article yourself), except to say that therein we offer views of what
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
This is the second in a series of five posts taking a look at last week’s landmark ruling by a sharply-divided Supreme Court, Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (June 21, 2019). Here are the related posts:
This is the third in a series of five posts taking a look at last week’s landmark ruling by a sharply-divided Supreme Court, Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (June 21, 2019). Here are the related posts:
This is the fourth in our series of five posts with thoughts on the landmark decision in Knick. In this installment, the dissent. Related posts:
