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
Here are the links to the cases which were not in your materials. Theme of the day: amateurs!
Our thanks to colleagues Jill Gelineau and Paul Sundermier for asking us to present. It was good to see our Oregon friends again.
A forthcoming article in the Cornell Law Review (“Virtual Briefing at the Supreme Court“) argues that it’s an “open secret” that the way to influence a SCOTUS case is to hit up social media:
The open secret of Supreme Court advocacy in a digital era is that there is a new way to
This morning, the Supreme Court declined to review a case we’ve been following, Like v. Transcontiental Gas Pipe Line Co., No. 18-1206.
This is the one in which landowners are challenging the district court’s issuance of an injunction in a Natural Gas Act taking which allow a private condemnor to obtain immediate possession of
With the opinion in the Knick v. Township of Scott case to drop as soon as Tuesday (we’re guessing the opinion will be by Chief Justice Roberts, by the way), hold on: we’re about to get super nerdy here. Impossibly nerdy. Yes, we’re revisiting the Star Trek analogies. We’ve been down this road before
In City of Dublin v. RiverPark Group, LLC, No. 18AP-607 (May 9, 2019), the Ohio Court of Appeals (Tenth District), the city exercised eminent domain — via Ohio’s version of “quick take” (immediate possession, not title) — to take an easement “for the purposes of constructing roadway improvements … and a shared-use path adjacent
Here’s what we’re reading today, in between real work:
Yesterday, on behalf of our Owners’ Counsel of America colleagues, we filed this request asking the U.S. Court of Appeals to consider our amicus brief in support of the property owners in a natural gas act pipeline case.
The issue is what evidence the trier of fact in a compensation trial may consider about “stigma”
Remember that Christopher Nolan movie from a few years ago, “Inception,” with its dream-within-a-dream storyline?
Well, that’s what a recently-filed cert petition which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to jump into California’s inverse-condemnation-liability-for-wildfires issue reminds us of with its taking-within-a-taking argument, as detailed in the Question Presented:
Whether it is an uncompensated
The title of this post may have you wondering, especially the part about how a regulation that invites others to physically enter private property, is determined by a court to not be a physical taking. (The court also hints at looking at a physical taking under Penn Central, and not by applying per se