One of the problems with high-public-profile cases like the multiple challenges to the “Thirty Meter Telescope” up on the top of the Big Island’s Mauna Kea, is that when the court issues an opinion, the public focuses only on the result, mostly from a policy perspective. Who won? Did the court invalidate the TMT permits?
No surprises in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Checker Cab Operators, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, No. 17-11955 (Aug. 6, 2018). As the caption suggests, this is another one of those takings claims brought by “traditional” taxicab operators against a local government for its refusal to keep ridesharing services
Super Takings (or Due Process) Nerd alert: what should-be-famous-but-isn’t SCOTUS case involved what is now this property?
Extra credit: why is the case important?
Location clues are all in photo.
Answer and more details is a subsequent post.
We already knew from its amicus brief brief that the federal government supported the property owner in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647, the case in which the US. Supreme Court agreed to review the continuing validity of the “state procedures” rule of Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473
Here’s the opinion in a case we’ve been following. In Berkley v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, No. 18-1042 (July 25, 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the federal Natural Gas Act allows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to delegate eminent domain authority to Mountain Valley, and that any challenges
Clare Trapasso has a Realtor.com piece on what a Justice Kavanaugh could mean for real estate, property, and land use issues, “What Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Could Mean for Real Estate,” where she correctly notes that “while commentators have been scrutinizing Kavanaugh’s record on hot-button topics like abortion and immigration, there’s been
Here’s one that’s been a long time coming (or coming back, more accurately).
In this recently-filed cert petition, the issue is whether an “exaction” imposed by the legislature should be subject to the nexus and rough proportionality requirements of Nollan, Dolan, and Koontz, or is merely subject to rational basis review (i.e.
Here are the cases and other items I either spoke about or mentioned at today’s Transportation Research Board‘s 57th Annual Workshop on Transportation Law in Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Remember that case from earlier this year where the Hawaii Supreme Court held that for purposes of Hawaii’s Due Process Clause, the Sierra Club (any “person,” actually) has a property right in a “clean and healthful environment?”
We asked if that were the case, then what does that “property” right look like? For example, how
