Court of Federal Claims | Federal Circuit

IMG_2947
Some of the Land Use Institute faculty, including (front row left), Planning Chair Frank Schnidman and Planning Co-Chair Patty Salkin

Last Friday at the 32nd Annual Land Use Institute in Detroit, I was honored to moderate a freewheeling discussion by a panel of takings experts, Professor Steven Eagle, Minnesota lawyer Howard Roston, and Michigan’s

MRGO

When you a federal takings plaintiff in the Federal Circuit and you pull Judge Timothy Dyk on your panel, your heart sinks. More so when he aggressively questions you in oral argument. And when you see he has written the opinion, you know it’s game over at this level.

Because we can’t remember a single

Here are the cases and materials I either discussed, or planned to discuss (but ran out of time), in this morning’s session at the 32nd Annual Land Use Institute:

  • Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) (establishing that “navigability” for purposes of regulation is different in kind from navigability for purposes

20180419_150416_HDR

We’re in Detroit the rest of the week at the Mercy Law School for the venerable Land Use Institute, now in its 32nd iteration.

Planning Chair Frank Schnidman has assembled a great faculty including out Detroit colleague Alan Ackerman (above, talking about takings liability for flooding), and we’ll be spending the time talking inverse

Here’s what we’re reading this Thursday:

Cert(s) Denied

  • Brott v. United States, No. 17-712. This one was disappointing, but, I suppose, not surprising given that it would have upset current practice, no matter how unconstitutional that practice is. This is the case which challenged the takings-claims-against-the-feds-over-$10k-must-go-to-the-CFC-with-no-jury scheme. We did a brief in support

Here’s the Reply Brief in a case we’ve been following, Brott v. United States, No. 17-712, in which the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether property owners who sue the federal government for a taking are entitled to both an Article III forum, and to have the issues determined by a jury.

Thanks to a colleague for giving us the heads-up about a recently-filed cert petition involving an issue we covered in a different case recently: judicial takings. Specifically, an allegation that a federal court has taken property, and as a consequence, the United States owes just compensation. The background of the case is pretty interesting

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following since its inception, Brott v. United States, the case which asks the deceptively simple question of whether property owners who sue the federal government for a taking are entitled to both an Article III forum, and to have the issues determined by a jury.

Here’s the cert petition, recently filed in a case we’ve been following as it has made its way from the Court of Federal Claims and through the Federal Circuit.

The underlying matter was litigated in the District Court and the Fifth Circuit. Those courts concluded that the plaintiff did not own mineral leases

20180127_091506_HDR

We’re on our third day at the 2018 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Conference in Charleston, SC, and as usual, we’re having our headline presentations by takings guru Michael Berger (pictured above), who is updating us on the most interesting and important cases of the past year, and Jim Burling, who will