Ariz App: “Strip And Gore” Rule Guts Inverse Condemnation Claim
A short but mildly interesting one from the Arizona Court of Appeals, Maricopa County v. Rovey, No. 1 CA-CV 190659 (Dec. 29, 2020).
The County sought to condemn portions of the Rovey land for the expansion of existing roads. The roads had been used “as public roadways for decades,” slip op. at 2, and
New Hampshire: All Public Use And Necessity Challenges Are Reviewed De Novo, Not Only For Fraud Or Gross Mistake
In New Hampshire v. Beattie, No. 2019-0460 (Nov. 19, 2020), the New Hampshire Supreme Court was presented with two alternatives about how to review a property owner’s objection to the state commission’s approval of the quick-take of land for a state highway. The owner “challenged the necessity and net-public benefit of the taking,” slip
Trial Court Had Discretion To Exclude Unapproved, Conditional, 10-Year-Old Site Plans From “Before” Condition
A short one from the Virginia Supreme Court. In Palmyra Associates, LLC v. Comm’r of Highways, No. 191680 (Dec. 17, 2020), the court upheld the exclusion of evidence about a property’s “before” condition in a partial take case, concluding that the proffered evidence of the property’s development potential was too speculative. Or, more accurately
Hawaii: State Takings Are “Self-Executing” Constitutional Violations (Not Torts Or Breaches Of Contract), Subject To A Six-Year Statute Of Limitations
Here’s a big development in a case we’ve been following for a while (and in which we filed an amicus brief in support of the prevailing property owner).
In DW Aina Lea Dev., LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm’n, No. SCCQ-19-156 (Dec. 17, 2020), the unanimous Hawaii Supreme Court held that the
Holiday Suggestions For The Dirt Lawyer On Your List (2020 Edition)
Charlie Brown got a bag of rocks for Halloween.
But you aren’t so cruel, and want to give better gifts this holiday season to the dirt lawyer in your life, no? Here are our 2020 suggestions for stocking stuffers that will make property mavens celebrate the season.
Start with this one, Professor Bart Wilson’s
Tex App: Term “Property Owner” In Statute Requiring Bona Fide Offer Does Not Include Owner Of Easement
Before it condemned a parcel of land in Bastrop County, the State of Texas made a bona fide offer to purchase to the owners of the fee as mandated by Texas law, which requires that a condemnor make an offer to the “property owner,” and provide a statement “to the landowner[.]”
But in In re
Surf And Turf (Our Beef With The Virginia Oyster Takings Case): Although Leases Are “Property,” They Don’t Confer A Right To Exclude Government Sewage
Often, the dispositive question in many takings cases tuns on whether the plaintiff owns “property,” and if so, what rights does that recognize. If you define the property in such a way that ipse dixit excludes the “stick” the owner claims was taken, then the answer is always going to be no property, no taking.
Border Wall Funding Case Headed To SCOTUS? CA5: “We are aware that our decision conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s recent holding in Sierra Club v. Trump.”
You know what SCOTUS nerds want for Christmas? These words, in a federal court of appeals opinion:
We are aware that our decision conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s recent holding in Sierra Club v. Trump. That case involved a parallel challenge to the Government’s use of § 2808 funds to build the border wall.
A Return Visit To NYC’s Seneca Village
We’ve been there before, but even so, this video is worth your time. It tells the story of Seneca Village, located within the borders of what now is Central Park.
There are eminent domain and property rights stories everywhere you look.