Thanks to the folks at the Environmental Law Institute, who have allowed us to reprint an article from a recent Environmental Law Reporter which brings some clarity to the subject of the “denominator” issue in regulatory takings.
In Temporary Takings, Tahoe Sierra, and the Denominator Problem, William W. Wade, Ph.D., a resource
I just received my copy of the latest edition of of Professor Steven J. Eagle‘s definitive treatise Regulatory Takings (Lexis/Nexis 5th ed. 2012). It switched formats and is now a looseleaf and not a bound hardcover, which hopefully means it will be easier to update.
Like the earlier editions, this is a must-have for
Here‘s what we think is the final top-side amicus brief in Horne v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 12-122 (cert. granted. Nov. 20, 2012), supporting the petitioner/property owner. Filed by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the brief argues that where “the government requires a direct transfer of funds, and
Here’s the brief amici curiae submitted by five law professors who teach constitutional law, in Horne v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 12-122 (cert. granted. Nov. 20, 2012), supporting the petitioner/property owner. In that case, the Ninth Circuit held the District Court had no jurisdiction to hear a takings defense to the USDA’s
We’re used to knee-jerk reactions by state and local governments to takings claims: whatever the circumstances, the property owner is wrong, and loses. So it’s nice to see a brief where a state government stakes out a more objective position.
Texas has filed an amicus brief in Horne v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture
Here’s the amici brief of the Cato Institute, the NFIB, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and the Reason Foundation in support of the petitioner/property owner in Horne v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 12-122 (cert. granted. Nov. 20, 2012).
That’s the case in which the Supreme Court is considering whether a property owner
Okay, all you “relevant parcel” mavens, here’s another decision for you (once again involving land in Florida, although, unlike the other case which came out of the Florida court of appeals, this one is out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) .
These decisions provide a measure of sanity to the
Here’s the petitioners’ merits brief in Horne v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 12-122 (cert. granted. Nov. 20, 2012).
That’s the case in which the Court is reviewing Horne v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, 673 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2011), in which the Ninth Circuit concluded a takings claim raised as
Worth listening: a short (10 minute) podcast by Professor Richard Epstein, with his thoughts on Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (Dec. 4, 2012).
Here are some thoughts about yesterday’s opinion in Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (Dec. 4, 2012), in which a unanimous Supreme Court held that government-induced flooding could be a taking, even if temporary.
Bad Puns and a “Flood” of Litigation
First, the temptation in flooding cases is to make