While we put the finishing touches on our full write-up of last week’s oral arguments in Horne v. U.S.D.A., No. 14-275 (we posted our initial thoughts after attending the Court’s session here), here are other summaries of the arguments:
Texas Supreme Court Clarifies Just Compensation For Billboards
We’re at a conference with the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law in Philadelphia (talking about eminent domain, public use, just comp, and Horne, inter alia), so we haven’t had the time to read this opinion — issued just a few minutes ago — in detail. But it’s a case we’ve been
SCOTUS Oral Arguments In Horne (Taking California Raisins) – First Report
We were in the neighborhood, so decided to drop in on today’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Horne v. U.S.D.A., No. 14-275, the case about the taking of California raisins.
The arguments ended a few minutes ago, and here’s our initial thoughts:
- The Leviathan of the regulatory state was on full display today, with
Virginia Papers On The Ramsey Case: VDOT “Bullying” And “Sandbagging” Revealed
Here’s a couple of editorials about the Ramsey case, recently decided by the Virginia Supreme Court. [Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief in support of the Ramseys in that case.]
- In “Sandbagging, exposed,” the Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial board writes: “Around the country, states that want to take people’s land will sometimes pull
Raisin Takings Case Round II: Oral Argument Preview
On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Horne v. U.S.D.A., No. 14-275, the second time this case has been to the Court.
The first time around, the unanimous Court held that the Hornes could raise the Takings clause as a defense to the USDA’s action to enforce a
Virginia: Jury Gets To Hear About Appraisal Bait-And-Switch
The Virginia Supreme Court today came back with an opinion in Ramsey v. Commissioner of Highways, No, 140929 (Apr. 16, 2015), a eminent domain case in which we filed an amicus brief in support of the property owner.
Under Virginia’s condemnation procedures, as a prerequisite to a court exercising jurisdiction over an eminent domain
HAWSCT Clarifies Joinder Of Indispensable Parties
Here’s the latest from the Hawaii Supreme Court on the joinder of parties under Rule 19, where there’s a claim that an absent party is “indispensable” and thus the case should be dismissed. Bottom line is that an absentee should be joined if its presence is needed, and the “indispensable” determination only needs to be
Appellate Procedure Nerd Alert: Hawaii Supreme Court Justices Still Disagree About When You Must Appeal A Denial Of A Motion For Recon
Not too long ago — December 2013 to be exact — the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the 30-day appeal window under Haw. R. App. P. 4, (which also specifies that the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration under Haw. R. Civ. P. 59 tolls the time when a notice of appeal must be filed
Property Owners’ Brief In NC “Map Act” Takings Case: Depressing Acquisition Price Precondemnation Is An Exercise Of The Eminent Domain Power
Here’s the property owners’ brief in opposition to the DOT’s request for the North Carolina Supreme Court to review the court of appeals’ opinion in Kirby v. N.C. Dep’t of Transportation, No. OA14-184 (Feb. 17, 2015).
The court concluded that the Map Act — which gives the DOT the ability to designate hundreds of
New Book Forthcoming: “The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London & The Limits Of Eminent Domain” by Ilya Somin
To put on your to-buy, to-read list: lawprof Ilya Somin‘s forthcoming book about the Kelo case and the aftermath, available on June 5, 2015. (We’re in the process of organizing some book talk events with Prof Somin in the fall, and if you have suggestions for venues or want to host one, let us