From the Ninth Circuit, a published opinion in a case challenging a Napa Valley city’s mobilehome rent control ordinance, Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. 12-17749 (Sep. 3, 2015). Here’s a complete summary of the issues in the case, along with the Ninth Circuit merits and amici briefs. We’ve been following it because
NC Supreme Court To Review “Map Act” Takings Case
We have learned that the North Carolina Supreme Court has granted the State’s request to review Kirby v. North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation, No. COA14-184 (Feb. 17, 2015).
That’s the case in which the Court of Appeals not only held that the property owners’ claims were ripe, but that the Map Act — which gives
Nice Try: No, The Supreme Court Didn’t Make Wildlife Public Property In The Raisin Case
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 14-275 (U.S. June 22, 2015), we were waiting for this shoe to drop. And now it has.
In “Raisin ruling seen as a lifeline for endangered species,” Environment & Energy writes, “[a] Supreme Court ruling that struck down an odd Depression-era raisin
What You Need To Know About Hawaii’s New Environmental Court
Enviro Wars Episode IV: A New Court
You may have heard that the Hawaii Legislature, after an intensive years-long effort by environmental groups, recently created a new court with specialized jurisdiction that could have a big impact on how property and business owners are treated by Hawaii’s courts.
Known as the “Environmental Court,” this new
New Cert Petition: Does The Takings “Denominator” Rule Require Two Parcels To Be Treated As One?
Takings nerd alert: we posted about this case late last year, when the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that two separate parcels owned by the same family must be treated as a single unit for purposes of determining whether there’s been a taking. Eventually, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review.
So here’s the next step, the
Podcast: Cal. Building Industry Ass’n v. City of San Jose – Is An “Inclusionary” Housing Requirement An Exaction, Or Mere Zoning?
Here’s a short (approx. 10 minute) summary of the recent decision by the California Supreme Court in California Building Industry Ass’n v. City of San Jose, No. S212072 (June 15, 2015).
In that case, the court upheld the city’s “inclusionary housing” requirement against a Nollan–Dolan–Koontz challenge. The court concluded the ordinance
Links From Today’s “The Takings Issue” Webinar
To those able to join us today for IMLA’s “The Takings Issue” webinar, thank you. Here are the links to the items which I discussed:
On Koontz:
- “Surprise! Environmental Lawprof Dislikes Koontz“
- Ann E. Carlson and Daniel Pollak, Takings on the Ground: How the Supreme Court’s Takings Jurisprudence Affects
Takings International – Canada, Philippines … And More
We’ve been remiss in updating for the past few days, caught up in the whirlwind that is the ABA Annual Meeting. But that’s now over and we can finally return to our usual blogging routine.
First up, News of the World:
- The Supreme Court of Canada has a new Justice, Russell Brown. He’s
ABA Annual Meeting Programming: Takings, Land Use, Supreme Court, Election Law, Appellate Traps
We’re in Chicago this week participating in the ABA Annual Meeting. While we really are looking forward to a slate of thrilling committee meetings, what we’re really anticipating is the CLE programming. Here are what we think are the highlights:
- Looming Land Use Constitutional Issues – Friday, July 31, 2:45 – 4:15 pm, Westin Chicago
SCOTUS Requests Response To § 1500 Petition
Check out the Federal Takings blog, which notes that the Supreme Court has asked the federal government to respond to the cert petition in Ministerio Roca Solida, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-5058 (filed May 27, 2015). The government previously waived its right to respond.
The issue presented in the case is one which