We can’t pretend that we understand everything that is going on in the Supreme Court of India’s recent opinion in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra, No. 2013-6156 (Aug. 7, 2020) (but when has that ever stopped us before?), but after reviewing the decision, we thought we would post it because of
New Law Review Article: “Deciding Where to Take Your Takings Case Post-Knick
Check this out, a newly-published article on takings by two eminent Florida takings practitioners, Alicia Gonzalez & Susan L. Trevarthen, Deciding Where to Take Your Takings Case Post-Knick, 49 Stetson L. Rev. 539 (2020).
If the title isn’t enough to grab your interest, here’s the description in the Introduction,
Post-Knick,both plaintiffs
Is It A Taking When Five-O Bogarts Your (Legal) Weed?
California law has decriminalized weed. Local governments, however, may regulate the use, sale, possession, and other things (like it can regulate other perfectly legal things). You know, police power kind of regulation.
Under that latter authority, the County of Santa Cruz adopted an ordinance that prohibits a medical weed facility from growing more than 99
Construction Impacts From Public Project Are Not “Quality Of Life” General Damages, But Takings Requiring Compensation
The Louisiana Court of Appeal’s opinion in Lowenburg v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, No. 2019-CA-0524 (July 29, 2020) is long (54 pages) and detailed. But for those of you interested in inverse condemnation liability stemming from the impacts on property owners from public construction projects, this is your case.
This consolidated
Michigan SCT: Flint Takings Plaintiffs Alleged Unique Property Injuries, And That’s Enough To Survive Summary Judgment
There’s a lot going on in the Michigan Supreme Court’s opinion in Mays v. Governor, No. 157335 (July 29, 2020). After all, the case involves claims for personal and property damages resulting from the Flint (Michigan) water crisis. That’s an issue we’ve been following that has also grabbed national headlines.
But if you
New Cert Petition: Does A Physical Invasion Taking Require 24/7 Occupation?
Here’s the cert petition that we’ve been waiting to drop in a case we’ve been following. Last we checked in, the Ninth Circuit (with concurral) had denied en banc review, over a dissental.
In Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma, 923 F.3d 524 (May 8, 2019), a 2-1 panel of the Ninth Circuit
Apparently, Trees Still Aren’t Quite “Property” In Nebraska
This is a case about trees. The County highway maintenance department entered the plaintiffs’ rural undeveloped land (with permission) to cut and remove certain trees, but then went to the wrong place and cut the wrong trees.
The plaintiffs wanted compensation for the trees, measured as the cost to replace the trees. The County offered
New Book Coming In August: Regulatory Takings After Knick by David Callies
by David Lee Callies
Coming soon (August), a new book from lawprof David Callies on what might be our favorite subject, regulatory takings.
We had a chance to review the proofs, and we highly recommend this one for your bookshelf. We’ll bring you more once published. But for now, you can reserve your copy here
Michigan: Gov’t Keeping The Change From Tax Delinquency Sale Is A Taking
Our Louisiana friends have a great word — lagniappe — that we’re not sure we understand precisely, but to us has always meant that little something extra. As Mark Twain wrote, “[i]t is the equivalent of the thirteenth roll in a ‘baker’s dozen.’ It is something thrown in, gratis, for good measure.” As far as
New (Mike Berger) Cert Petition: “This case is the proverbial ‘Exhibit A’ of much that is wrong [with takings law].”
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following for what seems like forever. This is also a fact situation that has resulted in litigation in a variety of different fora, and at times has seemed like the final exam question in a Federal Courts law school class. We wrote about this latest