A short one, an unpublished and unsigned opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Warner v. City of Marathon, No. 16-10086 (Dec. 8, 2017).
As the title of this post indicates, the claims made by the plaintiff included a regulatory takings claim. The facts and details of their claims are
Remember Brott v. United States, the case we last posted about here (“New Cert Petition: Property Owners Entitled To Jury & Article III Judge In Federal Inverse Cases“)? The Question Presented in that case is whether “the federal government take private property and deny the owner the ability to vindicate his constitutional
Here’s a case about the denominator in a regulatory takings case from July 2017, just after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Murr v. Wisconsin. We somehow missed the opinion when it was issued, but since we think it must be the first case which attempted to apply the Murr majority’s multi-factor test
If case you were thinking you might have missed a big property case that made its way to the Supreme Court, fear not. All of the above issues were raised in the course of yesterday’s arguments in a patent case.
As the transcript in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC
The latest in the “Map Act” inverse cases out of North Carolina. This is a longer post, but you really will want to read the summary, or just pick up the opinion and read it.
These are the cases in which the N.C. Department of Transportation, under the power of the state’s Map Act, for
Here’s the cert petition in a case we’ve been following from the Third Circuit, Knick v. Township of Scott.
Read more about the case’s background here. The short story is that the court concluded the Township’s ordinance which requires owners of all cemeteries, public or private, to maintain them was “constitutionally suspect,” but also held
We’re in court today (so blogging about lawyering must yield to the actual practice of lawyering) so we’re going to just post this here, and let you consider it. And maybe wait for our New York City colleagues (who just happen to represent the property owner), to weigh in via their eminent domain blog.
We all know that if you are challenging a federal government action as either beyond the agency’s authority (or is unconstitutional), and as a taking, you’ve got to split your claim between a U.S. district court, and the Court of Federal Claims. The district court considers challenges to the validity of the government action, while
Here’s the cert petition which has just been filed in a case we’ve been following since it was instituted in the District Court, Brott v. United States.
The case presents the deceptively simple question of whether property owners who sue the federal government for a taking are entitled to both an Article III
Update: our colleague Bryan Wenter has his take on one of the cases denied review here (“U.S. Supreme Court Again Declines to Consider Important Property Rights Issue Regarding the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine“) (“Because the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court leans ideologically conservative by any traditional measure and