Land users: come join us online for the 36th Annual Land Use Institute. Yes, the venerable program is back again, with the usual line up of dirt law experts covering all you need to know and bringing you up to speed on the latest. Here’s the description of the program:
This Annual Land Use Institute
Join our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues Jon Houghton, Daniel Woislaw, Kady Valois, and Sam Spiegelman (moderating) tomorrow, Wednesday, February 8, 2023, at 3:00 – 4:00 p.m. ET for a free webinar, “Emerging Issues in Property Rights.”
Here’s the agenda:
Protecting private property rights has been at the heart of PLF’s
“…When the big man comes a knockin, he is there to represent the humble little farmer with his farm law arguments.
The judges all agree and so does every jury,
they say he’s the best farm lawyer in the whole state of Missouri…”
Thanks to our Missouri colleague Paul Henry (himself a darn good
We really want you there…
One (nearly) last reminder that there’s still time to register for your space at the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 1-4, 2023, in Austin. In the past several years, we have sold out due to the conference room capacity and the conference hotel block.
Unsurprisingly there isn’t a lot there in the majority opinion in Bowers Dev. LLC v. Oneida Cnty. Indus, Dev. Agency, No. 2022-00744 (Dec. 23, 2022) (this is from the New York courts after all, which don’t seem to write long opinions), but we’re posting it so you can compare the majority with the dissent.
Here’s one that’s holding over from 2022, but we wanted to make sure to post because it’s a good reminder that when you settle a case, you settle the case.
Wyoming is one of those jurisdictions that has one of those “I want it back” provisions, where if property is not actually used for X
Thanks to a colleague giving us a heads-up, we’re starting 2023 with a neat case.
In Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, No. 2021-1168 (Dec. 29, 2022), the Ohio Supreme Court declined to apply a statutory presumption of necessity to the power company’s efforts to use eminent domain to expand the scope of several existing
A classically short opinion from the New York Supreme Court (Appellate Division, Fourth District) in HBC Victor LLC v. Town of Victor, No. 683 (Dec. 23, 2022). (So short that we were tempted to simply post the opinion and let you read it, because it will probably take you just as long to read
Check this out, a decision upholding a necessity challenge to a taking.
Necessity, you say? What’s this? Aren’t necessity challenges subject to an even more deferential judicial standard of review than the rational basis test applied to declarations of public use? Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court in Adirondack Ry. Co. v. New York, 176
Here’s another one from the Ninth Circuit, argued on what one advocate called “land use day at the Ninth Circuit” (except, unlike the other two cases argued that day, the decision in this one gets published).
In Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay, No. 21-16688 (Dec. 8, 2022), the panel upheld