This is the second in a series of five posts taking a look at last week’s landmark ruling by a sharply-divided Supreme Court, Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (June 21, 2019). Here are the related posts:
Knick Analysis, Part III: What It Means To “Take” Property Without Just Compensation – “A bank robber might give the loot back, but he still robbed the bank.”
This is the third in a series of five posts taking a look at last week’s landmark ruling by a sharply-divided Supreme Court, Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (June 21, 2019). Here are the related posts:
Knick Analysis, Part IV: Why Not Let Sleeping Dogs Lie? The Dissent And Stare Decisis
This is the fourth in our series of five posts with thoughts on the landmark decision in Knick. In this installment, the dissent. Related posts:
- Part I: After More Than 30 Years, Supreme Court Reopens The Federal Courthouse Door To Property Owners
- Part II: The Court Finds A Vehicle In A Zombie-Zoning Case
- Part III:
Knick Analysis, Part V: What’s Next?
This is the fifth and last in our series of posts with thoughts on the landmark decision in Knick. In this post, we’ll be puling out our crystal balls, and doing a bit of forecasting. Here are the related posts:
Williamson County Overruled: After Nearly A Century, Supreme Court Finally Has Figured Out What A Regulatory Takings Claim Looks Like
We’ll be doing a longer post with our thoughts on the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (June 21, 2019). But here’s the big picture.
It appears that at least five Justices finally seem to understand what we in the property bar have been saying for decades
“The state-litigation requirement of Williamson County is overruled.”
Property lawyers, dust off your Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and federal judges your long vacay from dealing with regulatory takings and inverse condemnation cases is over, because this just in: by a 5-4 margin (Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, with Justice Kagan writing the dissent), the U.S. Supreme Court today finally (finally!)
NY Court of Appeals Considering Whether A Pipeline Can Take Property For A Project That Can’t Legally Be Built
Here’s a case that’s pending in the New York Court of Appeals that has been briefed and is awaiting argument.
In Natural Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. Schueckler, No. 17-02021 (Nov. 9, 2018), the Appellate Division answered this question:
This appeal therefore presents a novel question of condemnation law: can a corporation involuntarily expropriate
A Detour To The Vineyards Of Eminent Domaine
The title of this post isn’t poetic or figurative (like the windmills of your mind), it’s literal: for a field trip after the recent Oregon Eminent Domain Conference, we paid a visit to a nearby winery which — given its name, “Eminent Domaine” — we naturally could not resist. Besides, we already
New Must-Read Article: Kanner & Berger, “The Nasty, Brutish, and Short Life of Agins v. City of Tiburon”
A must-read for takings mavens. Property rights gurus Professor Gideon Kanner and Michael Berger have published a new article, The Nasty, Brutish, and Short Life of Agins v. Tiburon, 50 Urb. Lawyer 1 (2019). It’s the lead article in the latest volume of The Urban Lawyer, the law journal of our Section of
Colorado: A Lot Of Private Benefit Today Does Not Overcome Smattering Of Possible Public Future Benefit
The Colorado Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case we’ve been following on public use in eminent domain. in which it reframed the Questions Presented.
In Carousel Farms v. Woodcrest Homes, No. 2018SC30 (June 10, 2019), the court reversed the court of appeals’ conclusion that a taking lacked a public purpose because