Check this out, a local government has filed a cert petition seeking reversal of one of those relatively rare circumstances where the property owner won below on a temporary regulatory takings claim for the County’s denial of a development permit.
We won’t go into details on this, but urge you to read the petition, especially
Today at 10am Hawaii Time (1pm PT/4pm ET), the Hawaii Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case asking whether a 1922 deed restriction imposed by the Territory of Hawaii on a land patent conveying fee simple title to a private owner, subject to the land always being used for “church purposes” (i.e
Mark your calendars and register now for the upcoming American Law Institute-CLE webinar “Property Rights and Regulatory Takings at the Supreme Court.” The focus of this program is a summary and analysis (including “what’s next?”) of the two big property and eminent domain cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, Sheetz (exactions), and
Disclosure: this one is one of ours, so we’re not going to do a deep dive or do much commentary (must resist!).
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court granted a Los Osos property owner’s petition, and agreed to review an (unpublished) Court of Appeal opinion which held that the California Coastal Commission has
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.
Our friends at the Institute for Justice have filed this cert petition asking the Supreme Court to take up the case where a New York town eminent domained the Brinkmann property for a public park.
What’s wrong with that, you ask…isn’t a public park a
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.
Check out this cert petition which asks about what actions trigger the statute of limitations on a takings claim. This is an issue that seems to be cropping up more and more these days. For example, see here, here, here, here
In Simple Avo Paradise Ranch, LLC v. So. Cal Edison Co., No. B320948 (May 23, 2024), the California Court of Appeal (Second District) held that a complaint adequately alleged a claim for inverse condemnation by asserting a privately-owned public utility’s actions substantially caused a wildfire.
The court rejected the utility’s argument that alleging that
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.
In Romero v. Shih, the California Supreme Court recognized the doctrine of an “implied exclusive easement” (which sounds an awful lot like a fee simple interest, doesn’t it?) in a private easement disputed between Owner A and Owner B.
The owner on the losing
Be sure to join our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues Brian Hodges and Larry Salzman, and Paul Beard (arguing counsel) and Chance Weldon (Texas Public Policy Foundation) tomorrow, Thursday, April 25, 2024, at 4pm ET for a free webinar on Sheetz v. El Dorado County, the Supreme Court’s recent decision holding that all permit conditions
As we noted here (“SCOTUS Denies Review To Remaining Rent Control Takings Petitions: “Important and pressing question” (Just Not In This Case)“), a small silver lining in the Court declining review was the statement of Justice Thomas accompanying the denial, where he noted the issue is an “important question,” and set out a
