The Arizona Court of Appeals’ opinion in Arizona Electrical Power Cooperative v. DJL 2007 LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0097 (May 9, 2019), is about the date of valuation in eminent domain, but beyond that is interesting to us because it sheds light on a case we’ve been following about natural gas pipelines and the
New Cert Petition: Fifth Amendment Requires California To Spread The Cost Of Wildfire Inverse Condemnations To Ratepayers
Remember that Christopher Nolan movie from a few years ago, “Inception,” with its dream-within-a-dream storyline?
Well, that’s what a recently-filed cert petition which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to jump into California’s inverse-condemnation-liability-for-wildfires issue reminds us of with its taking-within-a-taking argument, as detailed in the Question Presented:
Whether it is an uncompensated
PruneYard Undone: California’s Union Easement – Which Invites Labor Organizers To Enter Private Property – Isn’t A Physical Taking
The title of this post may have you wondering, especially the part about how a regulation that invites others to physically enter private property, is determined by a court to not be a physical taking. (The court also hints at looking at a physical taking under Penn Central, and not by applying per se
Tuesday Takings And Property Round-Up
Here’s what’s on the reading list for today:
- “Who owns the fertilized eggs? It’s a conundrum” from our Owners’ Counsel colleague Dwight Merriam, a piece about the property aspects of the question.
- “Dismissal of review in takings case restored precedential effect of Court of Appeal opinion” – the California Supreme
Flooding Was A Taking. But What Kind Of Taking?
The city conceded that its street and storm water project resulted in a neighboring commercial property flooding three times, and that “the evidence supported a prima facie case of a ‘partial taking’ of Lenertz’s property.” So far, so good.
But Lenertz had alleged the city’s project caused past and future flooding, and resulted in a
California Inverse Condemnation And Wildfires: The Comic
Thanks to Professor Michael Wara’s Twitter feed, here is what might possibly be the first and only example of a comic strip devoted to inverse condemnation.
Yes, it is on an advocacy site (the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245), and it doesn’t really go into the details of the doctrine
Links And Materials From Today’s Land Use Institute Sessions, Baltimore
Here are the links from today’s two sessions (the first, federal water issues impacting local land use; the second, Bringing and Defending a Takings Case):
- Maui groundwater CWA case
- the public trust along the Indiana shoreline
- tribal fishing rights and … highway culverts?
- WOTUS: son, they’re all my helicopters!
- Auer deference on the chopping
ND Supreme Court Rejects City’s Claim That “We Already Own The Property By Prescriptive Easement So Are Not Liable For A Taking”
Pretty simple facts in the North Dakota Supreme Court’s opinion in Lincoln Land Development, LLC v. City of Lincoln, No. 20180117 (Mar. 15, 2019): back in the day (the 1980’s) the City had a dirt road over private property, used to access its sewage treatment plant. Lincoln Land Development bought the property in 2005.
Materials And Links From Today’s Austin Eminent Domain CLE
Great crowd today in Austin for CLE International’s Eminent Domain seminar, co-chaired by our colleagues Chris Clough, Sejin Brooks, and Christopher Oddo. We spoke about “National Trends and Developing Issues in Eminent Domain.”
Here are the cases I referred to which are not included in your written materials:
New Amici Brief: Investment, Not Profit, Is What The Takings Clause Recognizes
Here’s the amici brief we signed onto for Owners’ Counsel of America, filed last week in a regulatory takings case we’ve been following.
This brief, one of several filed which urge the Court to review the Federal Circuit’s conclusion there was no taking (despite a Court of Federal Claims verdict that there was)