Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following, the property owner’s cert petition, filed last week, in which a U.S. District Court invalidated a Florida county’s “Right of Way Preservation Ordinance” which allows it to land bank for a future road corridors by means of an exaction. The court concluded the ordinance
Cert Denied In Kurtz: Williamson County Lives! (For Now)
It’s always a safe bet to predict that the Supreme Court will deny review in a case, and if that’s what you had guessed for Kurtz v. Verizon New York, Inc., No. 14-439 (cert. petition filed Oct. 14, 2014), today’s order list would prove you right.
That’s the case in which the Second Circuit
California Raisins Redux: SCOTUS Grants Cert In Horne II
Perhaps lost in all of today’s excitement surrounding the Supreme Court agreeing to review the same-sex marriage cases, is today’s cert grant in Horne v. USDA, No. 14-275, the California raisin case. That’s the case in which on remand from SCOTUS, the Ninth Circuit held that “the world’s most outdated law” was not
Right To Compensation Self-Executing: Property Owners Entitled To Jury & Article III Judge In Federal Inverse Cases
It’s been accepted for such a long time that it’s become one of those things that “everyone knows we’ve always done it that way,” but most probably don’t quite know why that is so: if you have to sue the United States for a regulatory taking or inverse condemnation, you go to the
4th Cir OK’s City’s Sign Ordinance: You Can “Whisper” Your Anti-Eminent Domain Message, But You Can’t “Shout” It
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that Norfolk, Virginia’s sign ordinance did not violate the First Amendment, when it was applied to bar the anti-eminent domain banner shown above.
Central Radio Co. Inc. v. City of Norfolk, No. 13-1996 (4th Cir. Jan. 13, 2015), arose from
Blog Posts We’re Reading Today: TransCanada, Admissibility Of Value Statements, HRAP Amendments Proposed
On Maui today to argue an eminent domain case, so haven’t had a chance to post up a new opinion. But in our down time between hearings and flights, we were able to do some reading of our colleagues’ stimulating blog posts. Check ’em out:
Nebraska Supreme Court Justices Conclude TransCanada Pipeline Bypass Of PUC Is Unconstitutional – Just Not Enough Of Them
We recently posted a summary of the TransCanada pipeline issue (currently splashed across the front pages nationally) by our Owners’ Counsel of America colleague William Blake, a partner in the Lincoln office of Nebraska law firm Baylor Evnen.
Today, in a highly anticipated decision (Thompson v. Heineman, No. S14-158 (Jan. 9, 2015)
You Snooze, You Lose: Pennsylvania Rejects Claim For Return Of Property Because Claimant Needs To Move Quickly
Commonwealth v. Allen, No. J-68-2014 (Dec. 29, 2014), the latest from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, is not an eminent domain or an inverse condemnation case, but we’re posting it here because the dissenting opinions contain some neat language about the importance of property rights.
The case involved a guy who beat a criminal charge
Final Brief In Virginia Supreme Court Eminent Domain Case: DOT’s Precondemnation Statement Of Value Is Admissible
Here’s the property owners’ Reply Brief in Ramsey v. Commissioner of Highways, a case currently pending before the Virginia Supreme Court.
This is the case about Virginia’s statutory requirements in eminent domain cases. As
a prerequisite to a court exercising jurisdiction over a condemnation complaint, a state condemning agency must as an initial step
The “Big Eyes” Have It: Hawaii Courts Again In The Hollywood Spotlight
We’re going to start off 2015 slightly off-topic, a movie review. But rest assured, there is a small eminent domain connection.
Anyone who was around in the 1960s and 1970s remembers those paintings and prints of sad children with oversize eyes. They were ubiquitous. But they gave our young eyes dissonance. To us, “art”