Here’s the amici brief we’re filing in an important Public Use case we’ve been following.
In St. Bernard Port, Harbor & Terminal District v. Violet Dock Port, Inc., No. 2017-C-0434 (Jan. 30, 2017), the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the taking by the St. Bernard Port, Harbor, and Terminal District of a Mississippi River docking facility
The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to review a public use case we’ve been following with keen interest, Carousel Farms Metropolitan District, No. 18SC30 (July 2, 2018), one we noted was the “most interesting” such case of 2017.
The Court of Appeals held that the actual purpose of the taking was private, so
Here’s a cert petition we’ve been waiting to drop, in a case we’ve been following out of Florida.
In Town of Ponce Inlet v. Pacetta, LLC, No. 5D14-4520 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. June 16, 2017), the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a Lucas takings verdict, concluding the case might not even be ripe
Some good (Dolan, Lucas), some bad (Kelo, Murr), some … not sure (Lingle).
But now, things get interesting.
Let’s just say that we’re not totally convinced this letter from Justice Kennedy announcing his retirement isn’t “fake news,” since it does not list the four factors he considered in deciding
A short, but published, opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
In Archbold-Garrett v. New Orleans, No. 17-30692 (June 22, 2018), the court held that the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment claims (search and seizure, compensation, and procedural due process) were ripe for federal court, even though
In Adams Outdoor Advertising, LP v. City of Madison, No. 2016AP537 (June 19, 2018), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the City’s construction of a bridge next to — but not on — property on which Adams maintained a non-conforming billboard, was not a taking.
There didn’t seem to be much of a dispute
This one is more for our muni law friends, but today’s post also has two eminent domain angles.
Anyone who has been to a city council meeting knows at least one fellow like this, considered a pain-in-the-butt by officials. A gadfly, who testifies on seemingly every issue. This is Fane Lozman, eminent domain protester
Before you get too excited about the California Supreme Court agreeing to consider an inverse condemnation case (the Court of Appeal’s decision in Weiss v. People ex rel. Dep’t of Transportation, No. G0552735 (Mar. 1, 2018)), remind yourself that it involves a procedural issue, and one that is very California-centric.
As our colleagues
Here’s a new cert petition, filed yesterday in a case we’ve been following out of Louisiana that asks the Supreme Court to revisit the Public Use Clause questions left open by Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
In Violet Dock Port, LLC v. St. Bernard Port, Harbor, & Terminal
A quick check of the Supreme Court’s docket in the Knick v. Township of Scott case shows that no less than 18 amici briefs have been filed top side. Not all of them in support of the Petitioner mind you (two, the briefs of the United States and of the American Planning Association, are in