What owners of rent-controlled mobile home parks say to courts: “Unfair! Due Process! Rate-of-Return! Takings! Equal Protection!”
What courts hear: “blah blah DENIED blah blah blah DISMISSED blah blah blah AFFIRMED blah blah blah blah…”
Latest example: Besaro Mobile Home Park, LLC v. City of Fremont, No. A130753 (Mar. 1, 2012).
Here’s the state’s BIO in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s rent control ordinance as a due process violation and as a taking. We posted the cert petition and the three amicus briefs in support here.
Both respondents waived their rights to file
Here’s the BIO in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s rent control ordinance as a due process violation and as a taking. Although the respondents waived their right to respond, the Court requested they file an opposition.
We posted the cert petition and the
After the New York Court of Appeals’ decisions in the Goldstein (Atlantic Yards) and Kaur (Columbia) cases, we opined that there were not many limits remaining on the government’s exercise of eminent domain in that state.
But even after those cases, there’s got to be some limits, no?
Our Owners’ Counsel of America colleague Michael
Here’s one court that gets its doctrine right. Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of Flagstaff, No. 1 CA-CV 10-0819 (Feb. 21, 2012).
A property owner challenged a city ordinance that requires a landowner repair adjacent public sidewalks, else the city will do it and send the owner the bill, and if the landowner doesn’t
Professor Richard Epstein, in his own inimitable and unequivocal style, opines on rent control and the Harmon cert petition in a Federalist Society podcast. A must-listen. Here’s the description:
In March 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued summary judgment in Harmon v. Markus, a challenge to New York’s rent stabilization law
In our law review article on Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Environmental Protection, 103 S. Ct. 2592 (2010), we predicted that “the fractured opinions in the case will be a boon for academics who may continue the search for the ‘takings quark’ (if not woodchucks) in the pages of law
Here’s the final amicus brief supporting the petitioner in the case challenging New York City’s rent control ordinance. The case is in the cert stage (we posted the petition here, along with the other three amicus briefs supporting the petition), and although the respondents initially waived their response rights, the Court requested a response
Today’s Honolulu Star-Advertiser carries a story on the Hawaii Supreme Court’s opinion in Hamilton v. Lethem, No. SCWC-27580 (Feb. 7, 2012), the case in which we successfully represented a father who challenged the lack of standards in “show cause” hearings in Family Courts under the Due Process Clause. The court held that Family Courts
Hamilton v. Lethem, No. SCWC-27580 (Feb. 7, 2012), the opinion we posted about here is being hotly debated and discussed at the Volokh Conspiracy blog here.
Barista’s note (since we represented the petitioner): many of the comments on Volokh make judgments about whether Father’s acts constituted “abuse.” However, the point we made in