Here’s petitioner’s reply brief in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), which responds to the Water Management District’s merits brief.
In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court will address whether the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards of Nollan and Dolan are applicable only
Here’s the respondent’s brief in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012). That’s the case in which the Supreme Court is considering whether the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards of Nollan and Dolan are applicable only to exactions for land, or whether they are generally-applicable
The three-part Penn Central test for an ad hoc regulatory taking tasks courts with evaluation of the economic impact of the regulation on the property’s use, the property owner’s distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. Throw all of these “factors” into a pot, stir, and voila, the answer of whether
Check out this complaint, filed last week in federal court in Honolulu by a Kauai councilmember against the County of Kauai, a Planning Department Official, and the Kauai prosecutor. The councilmember claims the defendants maliciously prosecuted him for a zoning violation.
And just what was the alleged zoning violation?
While the Planning official was
Here’s a follow up to our earlier brief post about the opinion in Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, No.11-56253 (Sep. 5, 2012), in which a 2-1 Ninth Circuit panel held that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the homeless against the City of L.A.’s seizure and destruction of their “momentarily unattended” property. The
We sure wish we could have attended the Cato Institute’s recent Constitution Day program in Washington, D.C., but here’s the next best thing, a video of the presentations on Property Rights, with a review of the recent Sackett and PPL Montana decisions by the Supreme Court, and an update about the state of property rights.
In Moore v. City of Middletown, No 2012-1363 (Aug. 30, 2012), the Ohio Supreme Court held that a property owner did not have standing to bring a regulatory takings claim when a “foreign municipality” (the neighboring city) rezoned an adjacent parcel, because the municipality did not have jurisdiction to exercise eminent domain over his
Here’s a few reports worth reading:
It’s the right of homeless folks in L.A.’s “Skid Row” area to not have their personal belongings seized if they leave them unattended for a while, but we will take what we can get.
In Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, No.11-56253 (Sep. 5, 2012), the Ninth Circuit held:
We conclude that the Fourth
An interesting new complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Hawaii, asserting claims for substantive due process, violation of the zoning enabling act, and the Kauai County Charter.
A owner of property that has been designated for resort development for 35 years is asserting that the adoption by the County’s voters of a charter amendment