In Turner v. Jordan, No. 22-13159 (Sep. 17, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that even though the federal courts have jurisdiction over Turner’s takings claim, the court nonetheless has the discretion to choose to wash its hands of the case in order to protect a state’s administrative procedures.
CA9: No Taking For Charging School Fees, Because Idaho’s “Free Common Schools” Clause Does Not Create Private Property Interest
We don’t see any free public education here.
Some old-school property “sticks” analysis from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Zeven v. Jones, No. 23-35438 (Aug. 23, 2024), worth checking out.
The Idaho Constitution has a “free common schools” clause:
The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly
S Dakota: Only Way To Read Precondemnation Entry Statute Constitutionally Is Allowing “minimally invasive superficial inspections” and “minor soil disturbances”
This would not be authorized.
Here’s the latest in an issue that found new vitality after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cedar Point affirming that government-authorized physical entry to private property is presumptively a taking.
This is the “precondemnation entry” issue in eminent domain which several courts have addressed:
Michigan: “few rights and legal principles have greater legal, historical, and constitutional pedigrees than the protection against uncompensated takings”
Here’s the latest in the solved-but-not-quite-solved issue of whether the government can keep the surplus which remains after a tax-foreclosure sale (see Tyler v. Hennepin County), the Michigan Supreme Court’s opinion in Schafer v. Kent County, No. 164975 (July 29, 2024), where the court concluded that its earlier decision in Rafaeli v. Oakland
Vermont: Environmental Court Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction To Determine Property Rights, But We’re Going To Find No Cedar Point Taking Anyway
DJK was adding a bedroom to an existing residence and needed a wastewater permit from Vermont’s environmental agency. The agency has a “presumptive isolation zone” around potable water supplies and septic systems in which a property owner is presumed to be barred from doing anything sewage related. In this case, the isolation zone for DJK’s
Unpublished Wednesday: Eviction Moratorium Taking, Excessive Fines Taking, And 1983 Zoning Statutes Of Limitations
Here are three federal circuit opinions, all unpublished. None of them worthy of a stand-alone post, but also not to be overlooked entirely.
- GHP Management Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 23-55013 (9th Cir. May 31, 2024): Lessors “failed to state a claim for a Fifth Amendment per se physical taking[,]” in their
Happy Birthday, Nectow v. City of Cambridge!
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
Aloha To Another Semester Of U. Hawaii Land Use
There are some rewards for working late in the 808
Yesterday was the last day of instruction for the Spring 2024 semester at the University of Hawaii Law School. Did these last few months ever go by fast.
A big thank you to Professor Mark M. Murakami, with whom I guest-lectured at the Old
Sheetz pt. I – “Radical Agreement” At SCOTUS: “Your Money Or Your Rights” Isn’t OK Just Because A Legislature Does It
Guess where we stopped for coffee this morning?
(A reminder: this case has nothing to do
with the convenience store.)
Note: this is the first of two posts on the recent Supreme Court opinions in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the case in which the unanimous Court held that exactions imposed by
Lawprof Ilya Somin: “Squatters’ Rights Laws Violate the Takings Clause”
Check this out: lawprof Ilya Somin has posted “Squatters’ Rights Laws Violate the Takings Clause” at Volokh.
His thesis is just as the title suggests, arguing that state statutes that treat trespassers as tenants are government-authorized physical occupations, and thus are takings:
Ideally, state and local governments should make it easy for property