We’re going to end 2018 with the latest in what we think was the most important issue of the past year (and which, we predict, will be the most important case in takings law for at least a decade when it likely gets decided in 2019), Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647.
That
We’re almost there, but we still have room remaining. At the 2018 Conference in Charleston, we both sold out the registrations and the conference hotel, so we planned ahead for the upcoming 2019 Conference in Palm Springs at the Renaissance Palm Springs Resort.
Register here. You will also be able to download
Here’s the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in a case that adds to a circuit split (CA7 vs others) about whether a private condemnor, exercising the delegated federal power of eminent domain for a pipeline corridor under the Natural Gas Act, can obtain pre-judgment possession of the property, even though the NGA does not delegate the power
As we just detailed, the Eleventh Circuit joined the Third and Fourth (contra the Seventh) Circuits in concluding that a lack of Congressional delegation of quick take power to private pipeline condemnors in the Natural Gas Act does not stand in the way of a federal district court issuing an injunction to affect immediate pre-title
Here’s the final brief for Ms. Knick, replying to the Township’s and the Solicitor General’s supplemental letter briefs.
It’s very short, so you should read it yourself. But here’s what we think is the highlight:
Williamson County is irreconcilable with the traditional view that a Takings Clause claim accrues (and is actionable in federal court)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently heard oral arguments (stream above, or download the mp3 here), in a case involving an issue we briefed recently in another circuit: whether state or federal law governs the determination of Just Compensation in federal court Natural Gas Act takings.
Now, you might
Here’s the third (and final) supplemental letter brief in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (which is set for reargument before the Supreme Court next month).
Of course, you should not be surprised that the Township disagrees with both Ms. Knick’s arguments, as well as the SG’s supplemental brief, and
As we wrote in this post, the federal government”s position in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647, which is set for reargument next month, has us a bit perplexed.
On one hand, the SG’s bottom line is good: property owners can bring their takings claims against local governments in federal as
Here’s the supplemental letter brief, filed today on behalf of Rose Mary Knick, as requested by the Supreme Court.
Two more — by the Township and by the SG — to be filed today as well. We shall post those as they become available.
Here’s the Petition for Review we’ve been waiting to drop since last week’s ruling by a California Court of Appeal declining to review the California PUC’s decision to turn down the electric company’s request for a rate increase to cover the compensation and damages that it must pay as the result of a southern California