It hardly seems like two decades have passed. After all, it was a mere 10 years ago we were lamenting “Kelo At 10: Still Stinks, And A Decade Has Not Lessened The Odor.”
But yes, it was twenty years ago today … the U.S. Supreme Court, by the thinnest of margins, held in
It seems very appropriate that we’re posting the Texas Court of Appeals’ decision in Burgess v. City of Wentworth Village, No. 02-24-00252 (June 19, 2025) today, the twentieth anniversary of Kelo v. New London.
Because on the Kelo-versary, we start as the Burgess opinion did: an epigram wherein the court quoted a
A short one from the Virginia Court of Appeals. Very Virginia-specific, but there are lessons here for those of you outside the Old Dominion.
In City of Virginia Beach v. Mathias, No. 2073-23-1 (June 10, 2025), the court held that when a statute requires the condemnor to do something prior to taking property, the
810 years ago today* on a grassy plain down by the river, the barons convinced bad King John to affix his seal to Magna Carta. Or the Magna Carta. Or Magna Charta. However you want to grammarize it. (And no, he didn’t “sign” it, they didn’t do things like that back then.)
And
Here’s news we’ve been waiting for.
The William and Mary Law School announced that Professor William Fischel will be awarded the 2025 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize at the annual conference in Williamsburg in October 2025.
The Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize is presented annually to a scholar, practitioner, or jurist whose work affirms the fundamental importance
A short one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
In Couser v. Shelby County, No. 23-3758 (June 5, 2025), the court held that local ordinances which were adopted after a pipeline company announced plans to build a project to move carbon dioxide across several states (and presumably designed to make
Check out this recently-published student note: Cameron P. Hellerman, Misusing Eminent Domain: Pretextual Takings For A Traditional Public Use, 93 Fordham L. Rev. 2229 (2025).
The article considers the Second Circuit’s decision in Brinkmann v. Town of Southhold, about what we call “spite takings” — those in which the government’s stated public purpose
In Muskingum County Convention Facilities Auth. v. Barnes Advertising Corp., No. CT2024-0134 (May 22, 2025), the Ohio Court of Appeal upheld the Authority’s taking of two billboard easements where the stated purpose was for a “new facility serving the City of Zanesville and Muskingum County community[.]” Slip op. at 3.
OK, but what
Mark your calendars — or better yet, register now — for the 8th Annual Texas Eminent Domain Conference (Houston), August 14-15, 2025.
We’ve attended in the past, and can report from first-hand experience that it is a great conference, chock-full of the information you need for eminent domain practice in the Lone Star State.
One of the frustrations of challenging the power to take is … let’s say you win. Yay! You’ve stopped the taking!
So now what? Go back to your life safe in the belief that your property rights are secure? Maybe. If the government has had enough and says “no mas,” your win may
