A state statue which allows one private owner to condemn her neighbor’s property for a private road surely violates the Public Use Clause, you say? Not so quick.
However, in In re Opening a Private Road for the Benefit of O’Reilly, No. 10 WAP 2009 (Sep. 30, 2010), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Western
The week before last, the Hawaii State Bar Association’s Real Property and Financial Services Section held a session on recent developments in land use law of interest to local dirt lawyers.
We were not able to attend (we were teaching a seminar on water law), but our Damon Key colleagues Mark Murakami, Greg
The Urban Lawyer, the law review published by the ABA Section of State & Local Goverment Law has published my article Recent Developments in Challenging the Right to Take in Eminent Domain, 42 Urban Lawyer 693 (Summer 2010). It summarizes several of the recent court decisions on public use and public purpose, although
Last Friday, I was on the faculty of Integrating Water Law and Land Use Planning, a seminar on Hawaii’s unique water law.
My session covered “Water Rights, Property Rights and the Law of Settled Expectations,” and provided a crash course in Hawaii land use law, the interrelationship between land use law and water law
Still not have your MCLE hours for 2010? Will you be in or near Plano, Texas on December 2 and 3, 2010? Want to attend a conference at which the top minds in planning, zoning and eminent domain law are speaking?
Well, you’re in luck. There’s still time to register for Planning, Zoning and Eminent
In Lichoulas v. City of Lowell, No. 09-P-1448 (Nov. 17, 2010), the Massachusetts Court of Appeals concluded that the state’s Land Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider a property owner’s contesting of the state’s title to property which it purportedly took by eminent domain.
In that case, a follow-up to an earlier federal
It’s pretty easy to blog about cases in which your side prevails, but not so easy when you don’t. This post is one of the latter instances. In County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, No. 29887 (Nov. 10, 2010), a unanimous court in an opinon authored by Justice Acoba
Professor Gideon Kanner has a recurring feature on his eminent domain law blog Gideon’s Trumpet called “Lowball Watch” in which he points out cases in which the condemnor’s offer is below — way below— the eventual compensation awarded to a property owner.
Thus, we’re looking forward to his thoughts on the latest
The Institute for Justice, the Cato Institute, and the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty have weighed in on Tuck-It-Away, Inc. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., No. 10-402 (cert. petition filed Sep. 21, 2010), the case in which upper Manhattan property owners have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of
New York State Senator Bill Perkins has filed an amicus brief in Tuck-It-Away, Inc. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., No. 10-402 (cert. petition filed Sep. 21, 2010), the case in which upper Manhattan property owners have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the New York Court of Appeals