Following up on our post earlier this week with our amicus brief, here are the remainder of the briefs filed in the Federal Circuit in a case in which the government is asking the court to bypass panel hearing and go straight to en banc review of a Court of Federal Claims opinion which
HAWSCT Considering Wipeout Regulatory Takings: What Is An Economically Beneficial Use?
Heads up for a case to watch being argued next week in the Hawaii Supreme Court.
This is a regulatory takings case that’s been up to the Hawaii appellate courts before (see here). In that opinion, the court of appeals correctly held that a property owner raising a regulatory takings case has no
New HAWSCT Brief In Election Case: Voter Registration Appeal Is Timely Brought When Mailed
Remember that decision by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals that we posted a few months ago, after the Hawaii Supreme Court granted discretionary review? The case involved a question of how appeals are brought and filed in cases challenging a voter’s registration. In Hyland v. Gonzales, the ICA held that an appellant who was
Amici Brief: On Unsettled Questions Of State Law In Takings Cases, Federal Courts Shouldn’t Guess
Here’s the follow up to that cert petition we recently posted. In Romanoff v. United States, 815 F.3d 809 (Fed. Cir. 2016), a rails-to-trails case, the Federal Circuit was confronted with a question about how New York property law treated an easement. In that case, the easement was granted for railroad purposes, and
New Cert Petition: When Faced With A Question Of State Property Law, Should A Federal Court Make Its Best Guess?
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following (because we filed an amicus brief in the Federal Circuit in support of the property owners, and will be filing a brief in support of the cert petition).
This is the case about New York City’s “Highline,” the abandoned elevated rail line which was converted into
Sorry Not Sorry? Connecticut Supreme Court Has A Chance To Make Amends For Kelo
Recall that in the wake of the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London, at least one of the Connecticut Supreme Court justices whose previous ruling was upheld, expressed his regrets. Others have made similar remarks.
Well, here may be a chance for the Connecticut Supreme Court
SCOTUS Amicus Brief: Court Can’t Arbitrarily Reduce A Lawyer’s “Stock In Trade”
Here’s the amici brief we’re filing in a case which we told you about earlier, involving the way attorneys’ fees get calculated when a statute allows fee shifting.
This is the afterglow of a rails-to-trails takings case, in which the property owners are entitled under the Uniform Relocation Act to attorneys’ fees. We like.
Oct 6, 2016: HAWSCT Oral Argument In Eminent Domain Case: Do Parcels Need To Touch To Be Part Of A “Larger Parcel”
Tomorrow, Thursday, October 6, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. at Aliiolani Hale, the Hawaii Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case we’ve been following (we filed an amicus brief in the case, supporting the property owner on the first Question Presented), County of Kauai v. Hanalei River Holdings, Ltd., No. SCWC-14-0000828.
The
Links And Notes From Today’s Las Vegas Eminent Domain Seminar
During. Good crowd.
Before. Note the power strips on the tables.
Well played, Caesar’s, well played.
To supplement your written materials, here are the decisions and other materials which we spoke about this morning at the CLE International Eminent Domain seminar:
Wasting* Away Again In Margaritaville: En Banc Denied In Lucas Takings Case, Over Compelling Dissent
Denials of rehearing and motions for en banc review from a state intermediate appellate court generally do not catch our attention. But Ganson v. City of Marathon, No. 3D12-777 (Sep. 14, 2016) is the exception to that rule.
This is a long-running regulatory takings dispute between property owners in the Florida Keys — who