Land users, please read the California Court of Appeal’s opinion in Woody’s Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach, No.G050155 (Jan. 29, 2015), which starts off with this straightforward summary:
The language of the law is replete with synonyms for fairness: due process, equal protection, good faith, harmless error are all ways of expressing
Last we checked in with the Bridge Aina Lea case, the Ninth Circuit said it would hold off on a decision until the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in the associated state court litigation (see 9th Cir Says “Let’s Wait” On Hawaii Supreme Court To Rule In Bridge Aina Lea).
This is the federal court
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following, the property owner’s cert petition, filed last week, in which a U.S. District Court invalidated a Florida county’s “Right of Way Preservation Ordinance” which allows it to land bank for a future road corridors by means of an exaction. The court concluded the ordinance
It’s always a safe bet to predict that the Supreme Court will deny review in a case, and if that’s what you had guessed for Kurtz v. Verizon New York, Inc., No. 14-439 (cert. petition filed Oct. 14, 2014), today’s order list would prove you right.
That’s the case in which the Second Circuit
The people of Margate City, New Jersey, voted to say “no thank you” to building dunes on the beach to limit damage in the event of another hurricane like Sandy were to hit.
But the State of New Jersey decided to do it anyway, and issued an administrative order “taking” an easement. Problem is
Professor Richard Epstein began the Hawaii Land Use Law Conference with the keynote presentation on “Stealth Takings: Exactions, Impact Fees, and More,” which was his usual comprehensive and non-stop takedown of takings law.
Our panel on Impact Fees and Exactions After Koontz followed, and here are
Here’s the final program and faculty list for the 2015 Hawaii Land Use Conference, coming up Thursday and Friday, January 15-16, 2015, in downtown Honolulu.
This is the bi-annual gathering of Hawaii’s land use mavens, and this year’s program has two very special presenters. Storied lawprof Richard Epstein (perhaps more than a “mere mortal”
Commonwealth v. Allen, No. J-68-2014 (Dec. 29, 2014), the latest from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, is not an eminent domain or an inverse condemnation case, but we’re posting it here because the dissenting opinions contain some neat language about the importance of property rights.
The case involved a guy who beat a criminal charge
The Morris Family LLC v. South Dakota DOT, No. 26831 (Dec. 23, 2014), the latest from the South Dakota Supreme Court, is more focused on due process and civil procedure than on eminent domain, but since the background of the case involves a 1970 condemnation judgment, and a present claim for inverse condemnation claim
The Texas Supreme Court is generally pretty good about property rights. See this opinion, this one, and this one, for examples.
So when the legal analysis in one of its regulatory takings/inverse condemnation opinions has the following language — especially in a case where a municipal government has treated the plaintiffs/property owners very