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
With the 100th anniversary of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. nearly upon us in 2026, we’ve put together a series of events designed to reexamine the case that set the stage for a century’s-worth of intense land use regulations and restrictions.
Are Euclid‘s assumptions and conclusions still valid? If the
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.
In Hudson Valley Property Owners Ass’n v. City of Kingston, No. 59 (June 18, 2025), the New York Court of Appeals held that after a municipality declares a housing emergency allowing it to regulate the amount of rent, it has the power to order
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
We’ve had this one in our queue for a bit, but it seems now is a good time to lay out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in McIntosh v. Madisonville, No. 24-5383 (Jan. 21, 2025). After all, the Due Process Clause seems to be in the news a lot
The key quote from the Illinois Appellate Court’s recent opinion in Robinson v. City of Chicago, No. 1-23-2174 (Mar. 24, 2025), in which a property owner challenged the inclusion of his property in a new Chicago historic preservation district? This seemingly innocuous sentence setting out the standard of review:
The plaintiff acknowledges that his
Before we go further, a disclosure: this is one of ours.
Here’s the Complaint for Violations of Constitutional and Civil Rights, filed yesterday by the Santoro Family in federal court in Rhode Island. This lawsuit challenges, under the Public Use Clause, a RI town’s eminent domaining the family’s land for the ostensible purpose
What does a property owner do if she believes that the government’s eminent domain lawsuit is abusive? Is the remedy limited to the four corners of the eminent action (i.e., a counterclaim, third-party claim, etc.), or may a landowner institute a separate action which includes a tort claim for abuse of process?
In Indiana Land
Readers know that the North Carolina Constitution does not contain a “takings” or “just compensation” clause. Does that mean that the government can simply take property, and not have to worry whether the taking is for a public use, and with just compensation? Of course not.
Because we also know that the N.C. Constitution
Register now and plan on joining us on Thursday, February 27, 2025 at the U.C. Berkeley Law School for a one-day conference: “Property Rights and the Roberts Court: 2005-2025.”
Here’s the agenda. Here’s a description of the program:
For much of the past century, property rights were relegated to second-class status compared
