It was on this day in 1928 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its second most famous decision about zoning, Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183 (1928). We say “second” because everyone knows that the first is the Court’s decision issued just two years earlier which generally upheld comprehensive use, height, and density regulations as a valid exercise of the government’s police power to regulate property uses to further the public health, safety, welfare, or morals. See Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U S. 365 (1926).
Continue Reading You Don’t Look A Day Over 98, Nectow v. City of Cambridge
If A King Must Comply With “Every Form And Particular” In Eminent Domain, Then Today’s Condemnors Also Surely Must
Hawaii has a unique status among American states. It is the only state that once was a separate sovereign nation, the Kingdom of Hawaii and then its short-lived successor, the Republic of Hawaii. Yes, we know that Texas may lay claim to the whole six-flags thing, so maybe the more accurate statement would be that Hawaii is the only state that was a sovereign kingdom, ruled by royalty.
Continue Reading If A King Must Comply With “Every Form And Particular” In Eminent Domain, Then Today’s Condemnors Also Surely Must
New Cert Petition (Ours): Must A Due Process Claimant Exhaust State Remedies?
The latest from the lawyers who brought you Knick v. Township of Scott. A new cert petition challenging the Eleventh Circuit’s conclusion that a property owner asserting a due process violation must effectively exhaust state judicial remedies.
Continue Reading New Cert Petition (Ours): Must A Due Process Claimant Exhaust State Remedies?
CA8: Requirement To Abate Nuisance Isn’t A Taking
A short one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that we’ve been meaning to post for a while.
In reVamped LLC v. City of Pipestone, No. 25-1076 (Dec. 23, 2025), the court concluded that the city’s issuance of a closure order to reVamped after the business ended up on the
CA7: No Taking When City Forfeited Cars For Traffic Violations – Even Cars Not Involved In The Violation
Sometimes when you read a court opinion you imagine there’s a big gap between the objective, sterile words on the page and the reality of the situation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in O’Donnell v. City of Chicago, No. 24-2946 (Dec. 22, 2025) is one of those.
The words
New Cert Petition: Are Procedural Due Process Claims Subject To The Same Ripeness Rules As Takings Claims?
Check out this new (ish) cert petition which asks whether the “final decision” ripeness rule that currently governs regulatory takings cases is also applicable when the right alleged to have been violated is procedural due process.
The petition sets out how the lower federal courts have dealt with the question:
This case presents an important
New Cert Petition: You Can’t Go Your Own Way On Takings, California
The latest cert petition from Michael Berger, this time involving procedural due process and takings.
Here are the Questions Presented:
The City of Dana Point “red tagged” Petitioner’s motel and then had a receiver appointed to oversee its rehabilitation without ever providing notice of the hearing. Thereafter, it set the property for a
CA9: Government Holding Your Unclaimed Property In Trust Isn’t A Taking (But It Might Be A Deprivation)
Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Garza v. Woods, No. 24-1064 (Aug. 25, 2025).
The court concluded that Arizona’s abandoned property statute is not a taking, because the State was not exercising or claiming some kind of ownership of abandoned property (as in those cases where abandoned
Cal App: No Fair Return Procedures Required Unless You First Show Lack Of Fair Return
If your brain goes full mobius strip when trying to figure out the California Court of Appeal’s rationale in Anaheim Mobile Estates, LLC v. State of California, No. G063421 (Aug. 13, 2025), you are not alone.
Here’s the bottom line in this facial challenge to a California statute that limits mobilehome parks located
Tex App: Challengers Likely To Succeed On Due Course Of Law Claim For Short-Term Rental Ban
In City of Dallas v. Dallas Short-Term Rental Alliance, No. 05-23-01309-CV (July 18, 2025), the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a preliminary injunction, suspending operation of two ordinances which (1) restrict, and (2) require registration of short-term rentals in Dallas.
It’s a short opinion and up on appeal from interlocutory emergency relief, so there