It looks like our crystal balls are working.
Wait, that didn’t come out the way we quite intended, so let’s rephrase. Recently, we and others suggested paying attention to the property rights cases on the Supreme Court’s cert docket, paying particular attention to a case out of the Ninth Circuit, Horne v. United States …
We love any opinion that begins with “[t]his case’s story started in 1942…” A typical long-fact-pattern takings case, perhaps? Well, not quite. This case, which we’ve been meaning to post for a while, deals with who is entitled to intervene in a takings case.
In July, we posted the opening brief in Ladd v. United States, the case in which the Court of Federal claims dismissed the property owners’ Fifth Amendment takings claim stemming from a rail conversion. The CFC held that the claim was filed past the six-year Tucker Act statute of limitations even though the government…
The Oyez Project has posted the recording in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the takings case argued earlier this week in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Check it out here. We posted our summary of the petitioner’s arguments here, and will be posting…
The New York Times editorial page has weighed in on Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the takings case argued earlier this week in the U.S. Supreme Court.
And, no surprise, in When Flooding Is Not a Taking, the great beneficiary of eminent domain…
Here’s the transcript of Wednesday’s argument in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012).
BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): we’re predicting the property owner win with a minimum six-Justice majority (perhaps more), with a narrowly drawn opinion vacating the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that temporary…
Here’s the transcript of Wednesday’s argument in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012).
BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): we’re predicting the property owner win with a minimum six-Justice majority (perhaps more), with a narrowly drawn opinion vacating the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that temporary…
Later today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), to review the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that flooding caused by the Corps of Engineers was only temporary, and even thought it destroyed trees owned by Arkansas, it was not…
If you understand that headline, congratulations: you are officially a takings geek.
Here’s another piece worth reading, to prepare yourself for next week’s oral arguments in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012): Is the federal government shifting the focus in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission?…
Greenwire’s Lawrence Hurley has posted his preview of next week’s Supreme Court arguments in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012).
In Ark. girds for showdown with Army Corps over forest flooding, Hurley writes:
The Supreme Court’s job is to decide whether temporary flooding of…
