Here’s the amicus brief filed yesterday by the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, joined by Owners’ Counsel of America, in a case we’ve been following.
This case asks the Court to resolve a big outstanding issue: are legislatively-imposed exactions (however that term is defined) subject to the same
The Indiana Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in Town of Clear Lake v. Hoagland Family Ltd. P’ship, No. 76A05-1606-PL-1241 (Apr. 6, 2017), doesn’t really involve inverse condemnation, except in the background. But we found it interesting nonetheless, because of the way the opinion finishes up, with a plethora of potty puns.
The case involved
Here’s the recording of the March 20, 2017 oral arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, the e “larger parcel” or “denominator” case.
The printed transcript is posted here, and our summary of the arguments is posted here. Our preview of the arguments, which includes link to the briefs, is here.
Here’s the third amicus brief filed in support of our cert petition in Bay Point Properties, Inc. v. Mississippi Transportation Commission, a case asking whether the Just Compensation Clause prohibits a court from instructing an inverse condemnation jury that it must value taken property as if it was burdened by a highway easement which the
It’s flashback to Property I class today, folks.
Yesterday’s opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Barfield v. Sho-Me Power Elec. Coop., No. 15-2964 (Mar. 29, 2017) was about easements, and there wasn’t really a takings issue presented, but we thought we would post it anyway since it
Another one (short) from the Kansas Supreme Court, this time a straight takings case, and not inverse condemnation.
In Pener v. King, No. 114850 (Mar. 24, 2017), the court tackled several issues in a case involving KDOT’s taking of land for highway project. Part of the taking required KDOT to take down the
A noteworthy decision from the Kansas Supreme Court in Creegan v. State of Kansas, No. 111082 (Mar. 24, 2017).
The facts of the case are pretty simple. Kansas DOT purchased land in a subdivision subject to restrictive covenants (CC&R’s) which required all property within the subdivision to be used for single-family residential only. KDOT didn’t
No, this isn’t the Supreme Court, it’s Graceland,
purchased by Elvis in March 1957.
(We’re just checking whether you are paying attention.)
Appellate oral argument, as they say, is supposed to be a “conversation” between the bench and counsel. But the overall impression we were left with after reviewing the transcript of yesterday’s Supreme Court
As takings mavens are no doubt already aware, next Monday, the 8-Justice Supreme Court will hear arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, the regulatory takings case which asks whether the county can avoid application of the Lucas wipeout standard on one parcel by taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiffs also own the
Here’s what we’re reading this Monday: