A quick one from the Virginia Supreme Court, on pleading inverse condemnation in flooding cases. Or in any inverse case, actually.
In AGCS Marine Insurance Co. v. Arlington County, No. 1160221 (June 15, 2017), the court held that the insurance company (which paid off the property owner after a county sewer line flooded its
Under Missouri law, the owner of land must have owned it at the time of the taking in order to have standing to bring an inverse condemnation claim. In Hull v. Pleasant Valley School District, No. WD79302 (June 6, 2017), the Missouri Court of Appeals (Western District), a case involving inverse condemnation liability for
A quick one from the Oregon Court of Appeals. In Courter v. City of Portland, No. A158840 (June 7, 2017), the court concluded that the property owners’ inverse condemnation claim — which alleged that the City had not buried its pipes deep enough — was ripe for judicial review.
The case started after the
Mark your calendars for this Friday, June 16, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time for a free talk we’ll be giving, “Regulatory Takings: Emerging Issues.”
Yes, it’s free, but there’s a catch: this talk is sponsored by the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law’s Land Use Committee, and you have to
You heard that right. After the Michigan Court of Appeals’ recent ruling in Lanzi v. Township of St. Clair, No. 329795 (May 23, 2017), you should consider skipping the usual Williamson County step of filing your federal takings claims in state court.
In that case, property owners sued the township after the township’s sewage
Here’s one we’ve been waiting for (we filed a brief in support of the property owner), one in which we were hoping (although not expecting) a more favorable result.
In Brott v. United States, No. 16-1466 (May 31, 2017), the Sixth Circuit held that federal inverse condemnation plaintiffs who sue for more than
Here’s the unanimous Supreme Court opinion, issued this morning in a case we’ve been following, Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, No. 16-605 (June 5, 2017), a takings case, although the issue resolved by the Court is one of civil procedure.
The Court’s holding is remarkably unremarkable: a plaintiff — including a plaintiff
Here’s the amici curiae brief we filed today on behalf of Owners’ Counsel of America, NFIB Small Business Legal Center, Cato Institute, and Professor David Callies in support of a cert petition which we detailed here.
The case is a regulatory takings claim, and involves wet and dry sand beaches, public
Welcome to a new entry in the eminent domain and takings blogosphere, Texas colleague Clint Schumacher‘s Eminent Domain Podcast. Yes, you don’t have to read to get your takings updates, you can listen while you work, while you work out, or while you drive or fly. Go here to subscribe or download episodes
We don’t normally post trial court decisions, particularly ones which simply dismiss a case. But the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s recent memorandum order in The Property Management Group, Ltd. v. City of Philadelphia, No. 17-1260 (May 23, 2017), which deals in part with a somewhat unusual takings claim, is