Check out this NYT story on a $12.4m verdict in a Connecticut eminent domain abuse case.
A vast majority of cases challenging such takings are resolved through injunctions; takings temporarily halted by court injunction are often abandoned. But because Judge DeMayo had granted New England Estates and the landowners the right to seek a claim…
The University of Chicago Law Faculty Blog posts a link to a summary of a Cardozo School of Law panel discussion of the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case and the Goldstein v. Pataki appeal, and the “pretext” issue in post-Kelo public use litigation.
More on Franco v. National Capital Revitalization Corp., No. 06-CV-645 (July 12, 2007), a decision from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals about the level of proof needed to show a “pretextual” — and therefore prohibited — taking.
I. Kelo and Pretextual Takings
In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S.
In a case discussed earlier here and here, Congregation Etz Chaim has filed a Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc in the Ninth Circuit in The League of Residential Neighborhood Advocates v. City of Los Angeles, No. 06-56211 (Aug. 21, 2007).
In that opinion, a three-judge panel of the Ninth…
You can read the court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order here.
I won’t be commenting on this decision since my colleagues Ken Kupchak, Mark Murakami and I are the attorneys for the property owner, but the statement of the family that owns the land is below.
# # # #
Circuit…
Thanks to Professor Gideon Kanner at Gideon’s Trumpet for pointing out a recent important eminent domain case from the Court of Appeals of Washington (state), HTK Mgm’t, L.L.C. v. Rokan Partners, No. 58113-9-I (Wash. Ct. App., July 23, 2007). The court summarized the case:
The power of eminent domain is an inherent power of…
In The League of Residential Neighborhood Advocates v. City of Los Angeles, No. 06-56211 (Aug. 21, 2007), which I first discussed here a few days ago, the Ninth Circuit invalidated an agreement between the city of Los Angeles and a congregation to settle the congregation’s federal RLUIPA claim. As part of the settlement, the…
Los Angeles entered into settlement agreement with a religious organization to settle a RLUIPA claim. The city agreed as part of that settlement to issue a conditional use permit (CUP) to the congregation. Neighbors complained that city could not agree in settlement agreement to override CUP process, which would have provided the neighbors notice and…
West Hawaii Today has posted a story on an ongoing eminent domain case:
Counsel for the developer William Meheula Jr. saidinverse condemnation can only be proven if the defendants admit thatthe government is taking possession of the private property for apublic purpose. The Coupe case claims the lack of public purpose fortaking the 3-acre strip …
As a way of saying “aloha” to 2006, I’ve summarized the land use lawhighlights (orlowlights, depending on your point of view) from the Hawaii SupremeCourt, the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court, roughly inchronological order. Topics include shorelines, eminent domain,environmental impact statements, RLUIPA, vested rights, and land uselitigation procedures.
If you think I missed any key cases or events, please email me.
