Professor Richard Epstein shares his insight about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 8-1 decision in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (Mar. 10, 2014).
The issue in the case was whether the federal government retained an “implied reversionary interest” when it issued railroad patents to private landowners, or whether these grants were subject
In addition to the initial media coverage of and commentary about the Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (Mar. 10, 2014) rendered earlier this week, there has been more, mostly focused on the final lines of Justice Sotomayor’s solo dissent:
By changing course today, the Court
Here are some reports and commentary on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (Mar. 10, 2014).
As we predicted it would after oral argument, today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the property owner’s favor in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No.12-1173 (Mar. 10, 2014). Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the entire Court less Justice Sotomayor, who filed a solo dissent. SCOUTSblog posts a summary of
We were all set to write up the latest case from the Federal Circuit, Banks v. United States, No. 12-5067 (Jan. 24, 2014), when our colleagues at Pacific Legal Foundation beat us to it with this post, “Federal Circuit revives Lake Michigan takings case.”
The Federal Circuit agreed, holding that the property
Next week, we’ll be in New Orleans for the 2014 edition of the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain program, now in its 31st year.
As usual, my Owners’ Counsel colleagues Leslie Fields and Joe Waldo (the programming co-chairs) have put together a fantastic 2.5 day of programming, taught by expert faculty. At 11:00 a.m. on
Update: More thoughts here, after having heard the argument recording, available here:
Here’s the transcript from today’s oral arguments in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173. That’s the case in which the Court is considering the meaning of the term railroad “right of way” as used in an
The Urban Lawyer, the law review produced by the ABA Section of State & Local Goverment Law has published my article Recent Developments in Regulatory Takings, 45 Urban Lawyer 769 (2013).
Here’s the Introduction to the article:
THE SUPREME COURT’S 2012 TERM promised to be a banner year in regulatory takings law, with
In Stueve Bros. Farms, LLC v. United States, No. 21013-5012 (Dec. 11, 2013), the Federal Circuit concluded that the government is not liable for a physical invasion taking when a dam enlargement project raised the maximum flood line on the plaintiff’s land by 10 feet, because there has yet to be an actual physical
Just in: the Federal Circuit today issued an opinion in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 2009-5121 (Dec. 3, 2013), concluding that the government must pay just compensation for a taking, because it caused the Commission’s land to be flooded.
This is the case that was up before the U.S. Supreme