Mention the term “PASH” to any dirt lawyer in the 50th State, and they’ll nod in understanding. It’s an 808 shibboleth — a kind of local property password — that signals that you’ve been around the block and know your stuff.
On one hand, it is simply an acronym for Public Access Shoreline Hawaii, the
Another invasion-by-sewage claim, another opportunity for bad punning.
What do you do when a municipality’s wastewater system malfunctions and “strew[s] [your] yard with condoms, toilet paper, raw sewage, and feminine hygiene products and force[s] [you] to endure ‘horrendous odors.'””
According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Stringer v. Town of
There are two main rationales supporting the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court’s opinion in Pileggi v. Newton Township, No. 1279 CD 2019 (Jan. 5, 2021), holding that the Township’s denial of a permit was not a taking. The first, in our view, is simply wrong. The second is perhaps more supportable, but still troubling.
This is
If you “get” this, you should be registered for the 38th Annual Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, to be held remotely on Thursday and Friday, January 28-29, 2021.
The list is growing rapidly, and you need to join us!
This is the “big one” where the nation’s best practitioners, scholars, jurists,
Are you a law student interested in takings, eminent domain, land use, environmental, and other dirt-lawyering related topics? If so, good news: thanks to the generosity of ALI-CLE, you can register gratis (free!) for the upcoming 38th Annual Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, to be held remotely on Thursday and Friday,
Our thanks to Clint Schumacher for having us on his program to talk about the upcoming Conference. We’re “remote” this year, but that means a different approach to our presentations (and a very modest tuition!).
We’re having programs with intriguing subjects such as “Planning to Win: Practical Strategies for a Successful Inverse Condemnation Case,”
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.
We listened live last week, but the court has now made the recording available in Johnson v. City of Suffolk.
This is what we call the “oyster takings” case in which Nansemond River oystermen claim that their property was taken when the City of Suffolk and the Sanitation District dumped sewage into the
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following even before its inception (last semester, our William and Mary class visited the site and witnessed the oyster operation affected – see video above), Johnson v. City of Suffolk.
This morning, the Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, and we livestreamed it