Under Colorado law, a property owner has an inverse condemnation claim when “a governmental or public entity with the power of eminent domain takes action that ‘substantially depriv[es] the property owner of the use and enjoyment of the property, but the [entity] has not formally brought condemnation proceedings.'” Kobobel v. Colo. Dep’t of Nat. Res.
Here’s the cert petition in a case we’ve been following from the Third Circuit, Knick v. Township of Scott.
Read more about the case’s background here. The short story is that the court concluded the Township’s ordinance which requires owners of all cemeteries, public or private, to maintain them was “constitutionally suspect,” but also held
You should be following along with Clint Schumacher’s Eminent Domain Podcast on your own, but in case you missed this one in your feed, be sure to check out the latest episode, which features U. Virginia Law School prof Molly Brady talking about “damage clauses” in state constitutions.
The title of West Virginia Lottery v. A-1 Amusement, Inc., No. 16-1047 (Nov. 13, 2017) alone may not give you an indication that this is a takings case, but yes, it’s a takings case.
As the title might indicate, it’s a case involving the state-run lottery and video lottery machines. If we’re reading
The Georgia Supreme Court’s analysis in Diversified Holdings, LLP v. City of Suwanee, No. S17A1140 (Nov. 2, 2017) reminded us of that old trope from logic, “no true Scotsman.”
According to a completely reliable source (Wikipedia):
No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a
We all know that if you are challenging a federal government action as either beyond the agency’s authority (or is unconstitutional), and as a taking, you’ve got to split your claim between a U.S. district court, and the Court of Federal Claims. The district court considers challenges to the validity of the government action, while
We’re looking forward to a good crowd at the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, when we shall converge on Charleston, SC, January 25-27, 2018. We’ve received word that our main conference hotel, the Francis Marion, has sold out.
But if you haven’t reserved your space yet, don’t despair. The
Here’s the cert petition which has just been filed in a case we’ve been following since it was instituted in the District Court, Brott v. United States.
The case presents the deceptively simple question of whether property owners who sue the federal government for a taking are entitled to both an Article III
Check this out: according to this article (“This SC man won a Supreme Court case. He wants to know why he can’t talk about it“), David Lucas, the lawyer-property owner behind the big reg takings case Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1993), was apparently not invited to speak
Update: our colleague Bryan Wenter has his take on one of the cases denied review here (“U.S. Supreme Court Again Declines to Consider Important Property Rights Issue Regarding the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine“) (“Because the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court leans ideologically conservative by any traditional measure and