Last week, we posted our amici brief in Texas v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., a case in which the Texas Supreme Court is considering two questions: first, whether a billboard owner is entitled to just compensation when the land on which it sits is taken by eminent domain, and second, what method of valuation
Friday Links: Duck Gets Eminent Domain Power, A Small Piece Of New York City … And More
Here’s what we’re reading on this blustery Friday:
- “Duck given legal tool for access during beach nourishment” reads the headline in Coastal News Today, referencing how the North Carolina legislature recently delegated the power of eminent domain. But before you think that eminent domain abuse has gone too far, it’s the
Texas Supreme Court To Consider: Are Billboards Movable Property?
The Texas Supreme Court has agreed to review Texas v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., a decision in which the Court of Appeals held that the owner of billboards was entitled to compensation when the land on which the billboards were located was condemned.
Texas needed to widen the freeway, and condemned the land
ABA Journal Zeros In On Our Favorite Courtroom Scene In A Legal Film
Yes, it’s our old favorite, the Australian eminent domain comedy, The Castle (our review herefirst Law Film Festival, and were in good company: Ebert also loved the movie).
The most recent edition of the ABA Journal, features “12 pivotal movie scenes with lessons for lawyers.” The lesson we learn from
“My entire house has been stolen” (And No, It Wasn’t By Eminent Domain)
When we eminent domain lawyers deal with claims that the government or some other entity is “stealing” someone’s property, we recognize that such claims are somewhat … metaphorical.
But here’s a situation where it appears that some poor fellow actually had his house, like, stolen. As in hijacked, ripped off, five-finger discounted.
The Daily
Circuit Split Alert: Second Circuit Says Williamson County Ripeness Applies To Due Process
When the one side or the other in the public debate complains about “judicial activism,” they’re usually talking about judges legislating from the bench — finding new rights, reading words into statutes that aren’t there, and the like. But that species of judicial activism doesn’t bother us all that much since we rarely see it
Cal App: It’s Not An Owner’s Fault It Needs Replacement Property After Condemnation – Request For Prop 13 Base-Year Value May Be Made After Four Year Time Deadline
By statute, California property owners have four years to . Proposition 13 is the ____.
In Olive Land Industrial Park, LLC v. County of San Diego, No. D063337 (July 18, 2014), the Court of Appeal held that
A nonmandatory interpretation of the time limitation also promotes the
constitutionally-mandated just compensation principles governing eminent domain
Georgia: No “Condemnor’s Remorse” After Special Master Determines Just Comp
Here’s an interesting one from the Georgia Supreme Court. In Dillard Land Investments, LLC v. Fulton County, No. S13G1582 (July 11, 2014), the court held that a condemning agency could not voluntarily dismiss an eminent domain action, after a special master has entered a just compensation award but before the agency has paid the
Links From Today’s Land Use, Planning, And Development Forum
To those of you who joined us at the ABA’s Land Use, Planning, and Development Forum, thank you. Here are links to some of the topics I mentioned:
- Property Reserve: There’s No Substitute For Eminent Domain
- Florida’s Pregnant Pigs and the Penn Central Test
- Too Big To Fail, But Not Big Enough To Take
Friday Round-Up: Eminent Domain, Cal Food Fight Ends (Maybe), Midwest Flooding
Here’s what caught our attention today:
- Opinion: Caution is necessary when Utah transit projects engage in the practice of eminent domain – an opinion piece from the Deseret News which mentions that recent Utah Supreme Court case about whether it is a public use to take an entire parcel simply to avoid the humbug of