Here’s one we’re posting without comment, because the Complaint was filed today by my Damon Key colleagues. But here’s a summary of the issues, from the press release:
On August 1, 2019, the Hawaii Vacation Rental Owners Association and Honolulu land use attorney Greg Kugle of the Damon Key law firm, filed a lawsuit in
Details soon. In the meantime, get your earlier registration discount.
The Land Use Committee of the ABA’s Section of State and Local Government Law is sponsoring a free (for Section members) informal webinar about the latest in takings law:
Knick Picking Regulatory Takings: Did the Court Right a Wrong, or Wrong a Right?
Friday, July 26 | 2 – 2:30pm ET
Here’s hoping you can
Here’s the first post-Knick property owner victory. That was quick!
Now before you get too excited, this is a GVR (“grant, vacate, remand”) in which the Court, having decided Knick, granted the pending petition, vacated the judgment by the Ninth Circuit, and “REMANDED for further consideration in light of Knick v. Township of Scott
The recent opinion of the Texas Court of Appeals (First District) in University of Houston v. Jim Olive Photography, No. 01-18-00534 (June 11, 2019) addressed a fascinating (and still unsolved) question: does intellectual property qualify as “property” for purposes of the takings clause?
The court held “no,” but that answer isn’t definitive.
The facts
Here are the links to the cases which were not in your materials. Theme of the day: amateurs!
Our thanks to colleagues Jill Gelineau and Paul Sundermier for asking us to present. It was good to see our Oregon friends again.
On one hand, there’s nothing really new in the Hawaii Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Hawaii Electric Light Co., No. SCOT-17-630 (May 10, 2019), because the court has previously told us the answers to each the component questions in the case:
A law journal article worth reading (short, not too many distracting footnotes) on takings theory.
In Imperfect Takings, 46 Fordham Urban Law Journal 130 (2019), Professor Shai Stern writes about what he calls the “three safeguards” in eminent domain (due process, public use, and mandatory compensation), and how to evaluate the legality of takings
We’ve been meaning to post the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County, No. 16-14789 (Feb. 13, 2019), mostly because of the provocative way it starts off:
The question before us is whether a litigant in this Circuit has a substantive-due-process claim under the Due
We suppose we should not be too surprised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s panel opinion in Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 6-56 Acres, No. 18-1159 (Feb. 5, 2019), which concluded, like the Third, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits did recently, that a private condemnor may obtain immediate possession