More on the “judicial takings” case, Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (June 17, 2010).
Remember that at the ABA Annual Meeting next month in San Francisco, the Section of State and Local Government Law is co-sponsoring a panel discussion of the case. I’ll be moderating, and
Heads up on a new article of interest to those of us who deal with exactions and Nollan/Dolan: Matthew Baker, Much Ado About Nollan/Dolan: The Comparative Nature of the Legislative Adjudication Distinctions in Exactions, 42 Urban Lawyer 171 (2010). Here’s a summary:
Much has been made, by both commentators and
I’ve just received my copy of the 2010 revision of Federal Land Use Law & Litigation by Brian W. Blaesser and Alan C. Weinstein (West, $225).
Here’s the description of the book from West’s site:
Examines all federal, constitutional, and statutory limitations on local land use controls, discussing cases, regulations, liability, defense strategies, doctrines, and
The State of Hawaii has filed a brief responding to the amicus brief we filed in June in In re Trustees Under the Will of the Estate of James Campbell, No. 30006, an appeal now under review by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. The issues in the case include the nature of “Torrens”
Today, we bring you guest commentary on Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-1151 (June 17, 2010), last week’s Supreme Court decision on judicial takings and ownership of replenished beaches.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Beach Decision Draws No New Line in Sand
But high court launches debate about topic of judicial
Here’s a round-up of reports and analysis of yesterday’s opinion by the New York Court of Appeals in the “Columbia U. blight” case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125:
The New York Court of Appeals today reversed the Columbia “blight” case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125 (June 24, 2010). The unanimous opinion came swiftly (oral arguments were just under a month ago), suggesting it was not a close call for the court. Here’s the Appellate Division’s opinion
Yesterday, we attended and posted a long summary of the en banc oral arguments in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, the case challenging the city’s mobile home rent control ordinance as a regulatory taking, now pending in the Ninth Circuit.
Today, the court posted the sound recording of the argument.
Download it here (caution
Continued from Part II
The court was not much easier on the City’s attorney, even though one might think that the hard time they gave the property owners’ counsel indicated they were more sympathetic to the City’s arguments.
Right off the bat, Judge Callahan asked Schwartz whether he “conceded” [appellate advocate alarm bells going off]
Continued from Part I
Coldron seemed to sense that the court was in danger of veering off track and buying into the argument in the amicus brief filed by the League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties in support of the city about the claim being time-barred. Judge Clifton returned to his