Here’s a short one from the Florida District Court of Appeal where the background might be more relevant to today’s circumstances than the court’s actual holding about which party bears the burden of proof on valuation (and goes first at trial).
First, the decision. In Florida Dep’t of Agriculture v. Mahon, No. 5D19-3102 (Apr.
Join us next Tuesday, April 14, 2020, at 12 noon Hawaii Time (3pm PDT, 6pm EDT) for a free webinar sponsored by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, “Safety vs. Freedom: Are There Limits to Lockdowns?” Register here.
Here’s the description of the program:
Governments at every level in Hawaii have
We were all set to digest the California Court of Appeal’s opinion in Ruiz v. County of San Diego, No. D074654 (Apr. 7, 2020), when we realized that the opinion was not issued today, but merely ordered published today, and that the opinion was issued last month as an unpublished. So we checked with
Suppose you’re walking your pooch “Kaiser” in the local dog park. Another owner is walking his dog “Odin” in the same park. Off-leash Odin attacks you and Kaiser, unfortunately killing Kaiser.
Those bastards took Kaiser, my property! A total wipeout Lucas taking (after all, you plainly have been 100% deprived of both the use and
Here’s an article, just published in the American Planning Association’s monthly magazine, Planning (read the entire April issue here), summarizing the Ninth Circuit’s latest foray into regulatory takings, Bridge Aina Lea, LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm’n, No. 18-15738 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2020).
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. We even visited the site with our class last year.
Today, the Virginia Supreme Court heard argument on the petition for appeal (streaming above from the webstream, or download the mp3 here) in what we call the oyster case because it involves the property
It’s tough with all that’s swirling around all of us to keep focused on non-virus related things. But because we think that’s one way to keep calm and carry on, we shall continue to endeavor to do so. But come on, being takings and dirt lawyers we also can’t help viewing current events through
The work of the courts goes on, and as long as there’s stuff to report, we’ll keep reporting as usual.
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an important takings decision in a case and issue we’ve been following for what seems like forever. In Anaheim Gardens, L.P. v. United
As long-time readers know, we often kvetch about the way many courts ignore the Palazzolo rule that simply because someone obtains property subject to preexisting restrictions on use does not preclude them automatically from raising takings claims. See here, here, here, and here, for example. More about the Palazzolo case here, including
Here’s one for our Hawaii folks, in case you all are curious about the origins of the analytical framework which courts use to review the legality of measures taken by the authorities in the name of “public health” that have an impact on the uses of private property.
As far as we can tell, The
