Here’s the BIO in in River Center LLC v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of New York, No. 11-922 (cert. petition filed Jan. 23, 2012), the case in which a Manhattan property owner and developer is challenging the compensation awarded by New York courts for a taking near Lincoln Center.
The Appellate Division denied
In case you missed attending in person back in January, the annual eminent domain law conference (ALI-ABA’s Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation) is now available on CD, mp3, and DVD here.
I was on the faculty, and along with Professor David Callies presented a session on The Role of Hawaii’s Unique Property
Here’s the latest chapter in the Skyland Shopping Center saga that has given us Franco v. National Capital Revitalization Comm’n, 930 A.2d 160 (D.C. 2007) and several other reported opinions (DeSilva v. District of Columbia, No. 10-CV-1069 (Feb. 24, 2011); Rumber v. District of Columbia, 487 F.3d 941 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
Court-appointed appraisers awarded $7.5 million for the taking of property once used as a shopping mall, but being used as an office park at the time of the taking. The property owner challenged the award, and at trial sought to exclude tax appeal documents from two years earlier, in which it estimated the value of
The city takes property for a bike trail. It deposited estimated compensation in court, and sought and obtained immediate possession. The owner disputed whether the city had the power to take his land, but the trial court rejected these arguments. The owner filed an interlocutory appeal on the public use and necessity issues. The city
In Miller v. FW Commercial Properties, LLC, No. 105066 (Mar. 9, 2012), the Kansas Supreme Court held that a lawyer who represents a party in a condemnation case is not entitled to recapture his or her legal fees from another party’s condemnation award because the lawyer is not a “party in interest” in the
Here are the other two amicus briefs in support of the petitioner in River Center LLC v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of New York, No. 11-922 (cert. petition filed Jan. 23, 2012).
That’s the case in which a Manhattan property owner and developer is challenging the compensation awarded by New York courts for
Here’s the first of two cases about the recovery of attorneys fees in takings cases.
The first is People ex rel. Dep’t of Transportation v. Superior Court, No. C069391 (Mar. 1, 2012), from the California Court of Appeal, about recovery of fees in eminent domain proceedings.
After a stipulated judgment days before the trial
The Stanford Law Review has been doing a good job lately of talking takings. Last week, it published a note about judicial takings and the Stop the Beach Renourishment case. Now comes the Law Review’s online edition with a new essay by Professor Richard Epstein, “Physical and Regulatory Takings: One Distinction Too Many,”
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