In case you weren’t already aware, Georgia law apparently distinguishes between “inverse condemnation” claims and “takings” claims.
That was not the dispositive point the Georgia Court of Appeals made in its recent opinion in HBC2018, LLC v. Paulding County School District, No. A20A1993 (Dec. 21, 2020), but we thought we’d highlight here, just because:
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
The Town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, barred the sale of alcohol on beaches in 1995. Turns out that a beachfront business was already (legally) selling alcohol on its property at the time of the ban. And we know what that usually means: a grandfathered nonconforming use.
Today’s case from the Florida District Court
As we noted in this post (“CA4 (Over Dissent): No Taking When Maryland Outlawed ‘Rapid Fire Trigger Activators’“), it was likely that a cert petition would follow after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held (over a strong dissent) that it was not a taking when Maryland outlawed previously lawful
A short one from the Florida District Court of Appeal (Second District) on exactions.
More precisely, what is an “exaction.”
In Murphy Auto Group, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Transportation, No. 2d19-1236 (Nov. 20, 2020), the court held that the requirements of Nollan/Dolan (nexus and rough proportionality) apply when the DOT demanded
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
Earlier this week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in its latest takings case.
Wait, what? Did we miss something? A takings case, argued this week?
No, you didn’t miss a land use or eminent domain case, but one in which Holocaust victims sued Germany in a U.S. court for seizure of property
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.
Here’s the Reply in Support of what we think is a very worthy cert petition, and which responds to the recently-filed BIO.
For the background of the case, check out this post (“What Constitutes a Loss“). The property owner has also summarized the situation thusly in its petition:
The State of
A short (unpublished) one from the Federal Circuit, Albright v. United States, No. 19-2078 (Dec. 1, 2020).
This rails-to-trails takings case turned on the predicate question: do the plaintiffs own private property? That question turned on the lex loci, and whether, under Oregon law, the original right-of-way conveyance meant to grant to the