To those able to join us today for IMLA’s “The Takings Issue” webinar, thank you. Here are the links to the items which I discussed:
On Koontz:
We’re in Chicago this week participating in the ABA Annual Meeting. While we really are looking forward to a slate of thrilling committee meetings, what we’re really anticipating is the CLE programming. Here are what we think are the highlights:
There’s nothing new in the California Court of Appeal’s opinion in Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. A138301 (July 7, 2015), which is probably why the court didn’t designate it for publication.
But read it anyway, since there’s some interesting bits. Nothing in the details, mind you, but in the overall vibe of
There’s apparently a huge backlog in California of liens which workers’ comp medical providers file to seek payment for services they’ve provided to injured workers.
These are liens possessed by service providers for workers whose employers declined to provide treatment on the ground it is not work related. In those cases, the worker may seek
Attend any talk by a judge which includes legal writing tips, and there’s sure to be this one: keep it as short as is necessary to make your points. Justice Kennedy’s remark that “I never read a brief I couldn’t put down in the middle” and Chief Justice Roberts noting “I can’t
In all of today’s excitement about the Court’s opinions in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275, the “raisin takings” case which we posted about earlier, we almost lost sight of the other property rights decision issued by the Court, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, No.13-1175 (June 22, 2015).
The case did
Remember that case we posted on a few months ago, where the Texas Supreme Court was asked to review the issue of whether trial courts have jurisdiction to supervise eminent domain cases which are in the “administrative” phase and not yet in the “judicial” phase (City of Dallas v. Highway 205 Farms, Ltd
In Town of Matthews v. Wright, No. COA14-943 (Apr. 21, 2015), the North Carolina Court of Appeals invalidated a taking, the stated purpose of which was to make a portion of a private road into a public street.
A taking to open a private road to the public? That sure does sound like a
Earlier, we posted the cert petition in Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County, No. 12-846 (cert. petition filed Jan. 15, 2015), which asks the Supreme Court to review the Eleventh Circuit’s decision throwing out Hillcrest’s facial substantive due process challenge to the county’s “Right of Way Preservation Ordinance.” The ordinance allows the county to land
Frequent readers know that we just love the Australian comedy film “The Castle,” which tells the tale of one man’s legal fight to save his family’s home from the abusive exercise of eminent domain power. (See “Kelo Down Under,” our review.) The case is played for laughs and in the