The details are yet to be posted on the web, but mark your calendars now for an upcoming (two weeks from today, on Friday, June 21, 2019) Federalist Society teleforum, produced by the Environmental and Property Rights Practice Group, about an issue that we’ve been following that is the subject of at least three
Links From Today’s Portland Eminent Domain Conference
Here are the links to the cases which were not in your materials. Theme of the day: amateurs!
Our thanks to colleagues Jill Gelineau and Paul Sundermier for asking us to present. It was good to see our Oregon friends again.
How Is “The Public” Defined When It Comes To Special Damages?
In Berry v. City of Chicago, No. 1-18-0871 (May 22, 2019), a divided Illinois court of appeals reversed the dismissal of an inverse condemnation claim, holding that even though the potential damage was widespread, the plaintiffs might be able to show that they incurred damage beyond those incurred by the general public.
The case
We Are The World: Iowa SCT Finds Dakota Access Pipeline Will Promote The Public Convenience For Iowa, Even If Iowans Don’t Get Any Of The Pipeline’s Oil
Here’s one we’ve been waiting to drop for a while, on an issue we wrote about earlier this week.
In Puntenney v. Iowa Utilities Board, No. 17-0423 (May 31, 2019), the Iowa Supreme Court — taking a different view than Kentucky — held that a pipeline which runs through Iowa, but which
Are Pipelines For The Public’s Benefit? If So, What Public?
An issue we’ve been tracking for a while — are takings for pipelines for the public’s benefit? — raises another question: how is “the public” defined?
Some courts, like Kentucky’s, define the public as the public which the jurisdiction serves. In the Bluegrass Pipeline case, for
Cert Denied In Immediate-Possession-By-Injunction Case (But There’s One More In The Pipeline)
This morning, the Supreme Court declined to review a case we’ve been following, Like v. Transcontiental Gas Pipe Line Co., No. 18-1206.
This is the one in which landowners are challenging the district court’s issuance of an injunction in a Natural Gas Act taking which allow a private condemnor to obtain immediate possession of
Alaska: You Only Get Interest On Compensation, Not On Attorneys’ Fees
In Keeton v. State of Alaska, No. 7366 (May 24, 2019), the Alaska Supreme Court held that a property owner is entitled to interest only on the “amount awarded” — the difference between the quick-take deposit and the eventual final judgment of compensation — and not on that amount plus the statutory attorneys’ fees
Shaka, When The Walls Fell: Yes, Knick Will Be About Takings, But It Will Be More About Federalism
With the opinion in the Knick v. Township of Scott case to drop as soon as Tuesday (we’re guessing the opinion will be by Chief Justice Roberts, by the way), hold on: we’re about to get super nerdy here. Impossibly nerdy. Yes, we’re revisiting the Star Trek analogies. We’ve been down this road before
Ohio App: Owner Can’t Object To An Illegal Quick Take, Except By Filing A Trespass Action, And Obtaining An Injunction
In City of Dublin v. RiverPark Group, LLC, No. 18AP-607 (May 9, 2019), the Ohio Court of Appeals (Tenth District), the city exercised eminent domain — via Ohio’s version of “quick take” (immediate possession, not title) — to take an easement “for the purposes of constructing roadway improvements … and a shared-use path adjacent
Frozen: “Necessity” In Eminent Domain Can Mean Mere Convenience (Or Anything Else The Condemnor Says)
North Dakota, as you might expect, can be cold in the winter. So cold that railroad switches need to be heated, else they get… frozen. The railroad uses refillable propane tanks, but these need to be refilled from time to time. And North Dakota is so cold in the winter that sometimes, the propane trucks