After Murr, the pending cert petition in Lost Tree was D.O.A., and today, the Court made it official. Cert denied. We thought that the Federal Circuit’s denominator analysis was the better one (although pretty much anything would have been better than what Justice Kennedy and his Immortals came up with in Murr).
Justice Kennedy’s Social Justice Warrior Test For Takings Clause “Property” In Murr v. Wisconsin
What to make the Justice Kennedy-authored 5 justice majority opinion in Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214 (June 23, 2017)?
There, the majority adopted — maybe “created from whole cloth” would be a more accurate description — a multifactor test for determining the “larger parcel’ or “denominator” in regulatory takings cases where the owner possesses
“Important” Issue And A Lower Court Split, But Cert Denied In Just Comp Case
We obviously wish we had better news, but today, the U.S. Supreme Court in this order declined to review the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in a just compensation case in which we represented the petitioner.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas filed this brief statement:
When a State negotiates an easement limited to one
SCOTUS, 5-3 Affirms Murr By Penn Centralizing Parcel As A Whole Analysis, Which Must Consider “A Number of Factors”
Update: Here are my first thoughts on Murr – “Justice Kennedy’s Social Justice Warrior Test for Takings Clause Property in Murr v. Wisconsin“
The title alone should tell you this was authored by Justice Kennedy, which means that, as we thought it might do, today the U.S. Supreme Court held in Murr
SCOTUSblog Notes Bay Point Just Comp Case As “Petition To Watch”
SCOTUSblog takes note of our cert petition in Bay Point Properties, Inc. v. Mississippi Transportation Commission, No. 16-1077 (cert. petition filed Mar. 3, 2017), a case which seeks U.S. Supreme Court review of a decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court. We represent the Petitioner.
In the “Petitions to Watch” segment, Aurora
Fifth Circuit: “the United States’s sovereign immunity can bar cases against it based on the Takings Clause”
Here’s the latest case in an issue we’ve been tracking, whether takings plaintiffs who bring major claims for just compensation against the federal government must do so in the Article I Court of Federal Claims, or can bring the claim in an Article III district court. The Sixth Circuit recently held that the feds have sovereign
Recording – “Takings: Emerging Issues” ABA State & Local Government Law Section Talk
Here’s the audio recording of the talk we gave to the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law’s Land Use Committee earlier today. (Some of you may note that in the intro we say the talk was on “June 17,” but since that’s tomorrow, we assume you understand that is just an error.)
The
Links From Today’s ABA Presentation – “Takings: Emerging Issues”
Update: the audio recording is posted here.
* * * *
Here are the links to the cases we mentioned in today’s ABA State and Local Government Law Section presentation, “Takings: Emerging Issues.”
The “Larger Parcel” In Regulatory Takings (and Eminent Domain)
6th Cir: Takings Clause Isn’t Really Self-Executing, So Federal Takings Plaintiffs Must Go To The CFC; And No, They Don’t Get A Jury Either
Here’s one we’ve been waiting for (we filed a brief in support of the property owner), one in which we were hoping (although not expecting) a more favorable result.
In Brott v. United States, No. 16-1466 (May 31, 2017), the Sixth Circuit held that federal inverse condemnation plaintiffs who sue for more than
SCOTUS: To Intervene As A Plaintiff (In A Takings Case), You Need Article III Standing (Duh)
Here’s the unanimous Supreme Court opinion, issued this morning in a case we’ve been following, Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, No. 16-605 (June 5, 2017), a takings case, although the issue resolved by the Court is one of civil procedure.
The Court’s holding is remarkably unremarkable: a plaintiff — including a plaintiff