The latest news in a fast-moving election law case, about the validity of a Hawaiians-only election to choose delegates to a constitutional convention about the issue of Hawaiian national sovereignty: this morning, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy issued this order which temporarily puts a stop to the counting of the ballots. An extraordinary move, but one
Appellate law
Court Of Appeal Files Pro-Condemnor Amicus Brief In Cal Supreme Court “Entry Statute” Case
The headline of this post is clickbait, of course, since the California Court of Appeal didn’t formally file an amicus brief in favor of the government in Property Reserve, Inc. v. Dep’t of Water Resources, No. S217738, a case now pending in the California Supreme Court. But the court’s opinion in Young’s Market Co. …
Ga App: Property Owner Entitled To Temporary Takings Damages In Addition To Attorneys’ Fees When Condemnor Drops Case
A quick one from the Georgia Court of Appeals. In Fincher Road Investments, LLLP v. City of Canton, No. A15A1290 (Nov. 13, 2015), the court held that a condemnee was entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs when the condemnor abandoned a taking, and was entitled to recover just compensation for the temporary cloud…
New SCOTUS Amicus Brief: There’s No IOU’s In Eminent Domain – Quick-Take Deposit Belongs To The Property Owner
Here’s the amicus brief we filed today on behalf of our Owners’ Counsel of America colleagues in Livingston v. Frank, No. 15-470 (cert. petition filed Oct. 9, 2015). That’s the case in which the Florida District Court of Appeal held that the interest generated by quick-take deposits is not the private property of…
New Cert Petition: Interest Earned On Quick-Take Deposit Is Property, Gov’t Can’t Keep 90%
We all know the old rule that “interest follows principal,” which means that when a deposit on account is private property, so is the interest which that deposit earns.
Not according to the Florida Court of Appeals, however. In a 2014 decision, that court held that interest earned on quick-take deposits was not…
Amici Brief In SCOTUS Affordable Housing Case: Prohibiting Homebuilders From Selling At Fair Market Value For 55 Years Is A Taking
Here’s the amici brief we filed today in California Building Industry Ass’n v. City of San Jose, No. 15-330 (Oct. 16, 2015).
That’s the case in which the California Supreme Court upheld the city’s “affordable housing” requirement against a challenge which asserted that it was an exaction and thus should have been subject to …
Upcoming Events And CLE’s – Appellate, RLUIPA, Sharing Economy, And More
Here are some upcoming events in which you may be interested, in chronological order:
- Sharing Economy: this Friday, October 16, 2015, from 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm ET: “Is Sharing Really Caring? Part I: The Law of Transportation Sharing: Uber, Lyft, and the Sharing Economy.” This is a webinar-format program, a follow up
…
It’s Here – 2016 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference: Complete Agenda, Faculty, Registration Information
Here’s the full agenda for the 2016 Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation / Condemnation 101 Conference, January 28-30, 2016, in Austin, Texas.
Together with our friend and colleague Joe Waldo, we think we’re put together a pretty good program that covers a lot of ground. This is the first time the conference has been…
BIO In Tucker Act Jurisdictional Ambush Case: Takings Claims Subject To § 1500’s Rules
Here’s the Brief in Opposition in the case which asks whether takings claims against the federal government — which we described as subject to a “jurisdictional ambush” due to the old Tucker Act Shuffle — are subject to the rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1500 set out in the Tohono O’odham case.
If that’s a lot…
Chutzpah, Exhibit “A”
We don’t want to take too much time away from our usual land use, takings, and eminent domain fare, but we just couldn’t let this one go by without comment.
Last Friday, we posted our amici brief in Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940, the reapportionment case which the U.S. Supreme Court is considering. The issue…

