In Deschner v. State of Montana Dep’t of Highways, No. DA 15-693 (Feb. 28, 2017) the Montana Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs, who argued on appeal that the trial court had improperly instructed the jury about the requirements of inverse condemnation law. But the court affirmed the jury’s verdict of no inverse liability
Inverse condemnation
W Va: Relocation Act Attorneys’ Fees Required Where Owner Sues To Compel Condemnation
West Virginia Dep’t of Transportation v. Newton, No. 16-0325 (Mar. 7, 2017) was the second time that case had come before the West Virginia Supreme Court. As we noted here (“DOT Should Not Have Mined Privately Owned Limestone Without Owner’s Permission“), the court held that the the Department of Highways should have…
11th Cir: Junky Inverse Condemnation Case Not Ripe
Scopellitti’s properties were apparently falling apart, as they were subject to a list of code violations, so the city issued citations, and went through the proscribed nuisance abatement procedures. Scopellitti, it seems, pretty much ignored the violations and eventually the city demolished the properties, an action upheld by the city’s administrative process. Next step, an inverse…
6th Circuit: Michigan Statute Allows Recovery Of Money, So Takings Claim Not Ripe For Federal Court
The Sixth Circuit’s majority opinion in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County, No. 15-2463 (Feb. 10, 2017) isn’t all that exciting — after all, it was a takings case brought in federal court, and you know what that means: Williamson County — but do give it a read. The facts are somewhat unusual, even…
New Article: Recent Developments In Eminent Domain
Here’s an article, recently published by the Urban Lawyer (the law review produced by our ABA section, the Section of State and Local Government Law), with our take on the most interesting and important eminent domain and takings rulings from the past year.
Many of the cases discussed will be familiar to regular …
Supreme Court (Finally) Sets Arguments In Reg Takings Denominator Case (Murr v. Wisconsin)
We’ve spent a good portion of the last two weeks at conferences discussing the regulatory takings case now pending at the U.S. Supreme Court, Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214.
The biggest question most had was why the Court had not scheduled oral arguments. There was a lot of speculation and gossip about the Chief…
Wyoming: Property Owner Claiming Inverse Condemnation For Spraying/Killing His Trees Must Exhaust Admin Remedy First
Bush’s trees had leafy spurge. “Hey,” said the Weed and Pest Control District, “we’ve got this herbicide stuff. How about we spray your trees free of charge? That will get rid of the leafy spurge.”
“Sure,” responded Bush.
Problem was the herbicide not only killed the leafy spurge. It (allegedly) killed some of the…
2017 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference Wrap, 2018 Venue Announcement
When we previewed the 2017 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference while we were getting buried in the snow a couple of weeks ago, we promised there would be better weather in San Diego than much of the country was then experiencing. As you can see, we delivered.
We — and by…
Links & Materials From Day 2 Of ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Conference, San Diego
Today, in addition to listening to sessions on Ethics, jury presentations, and expert witnesses, we presented (along with Dave Breemer of Pacific Legal Foundation) a session on “Takings and the Police Power.” Here are the links to the cases and articles I discussed in my portion of the presentation:
…
Day 1, 2017 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Conference, San Diego
Here are the links and references to the cases we spoke about today at our opening session on the national trends in eminent domain law at the 2017 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference in San Diego.
We again have a record attendance, and a good number of new attendees. If you aren’t…




