Some states (mostly in the Midwest, to our knowledge) don’t really recognize inverse condemnation” claims, at least as we in other jurisdictions use that term. Instead of recognizing a direct cause of action for compensation and damages when government has taken property physically or by regulation without first instituting an eminent domain case, these jurisdictions
SC: Damage Caused By SWAT Isn’t A Taking
In the course of negotiating a successful hostage situation with tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and a bulldozer, the Spartanville, SC police department damaged a convenience store. So badly that the owners “were later asked by the City to tear it down as it did not comply with ordinances regarding vacant commercial buildings.” After the owners said
ND: Entry Statutes Are Not Takings, Even If There’s A Physical Invasion
Entry statutes are in the news lately. As we reported here for example, the California Supreme Court recently saved California’s entry statute from unconstitutionality by implying a requirement for a jury trial (and other eminent domain protections) when the entries which the condemnor seeks to undertake constitute takings.
In that case, the party seeking entry
Nevada Clarifies Inverse Condemnation And What Is “Substantial Government Involvement”
To state a claim for inverse condemnation in Nevada, the property owner must allege that the government was “substantially involved” in activities that caused the taking of the property.
In Fritz v. Washoe County, No. 67660 (Aug. 4, 2016), the Nevada Supreme Court addressed what constitutes substantial involvement. Does it require actual physical “involvement”
Eminent Domain Programming At The ABA Annual Meeting
We’re experiencing the madness that is the ABA Annual Meeting — this time in San Francisco — hanging with colleagues from the State and Local Government Law Section (where we’re slated to be the Chair-Elect this year), and at the Council of Appellate Lawyers. These meetings are a lot of … meetings .. but there’s
Must Read: Michael Berger On “Property, Democracy, & The Constitution”
Last year, we posted about the Brigham-Kanner Conference, the annual meeting at William and Mary Law School where we talk all things property rights and award the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize. (By the way, this year’s conference will be held in The Hague, The Netherlands in October. But more on that soon, in
Indiana App: No Gov’t Immunity For Inverse Condemnation
Another flooding case, this time from the Indiana Court of Appeals.
In Birge v. Town of Linden, No. 54A01-1509-PL-1495 (July 25, 2016), the court considered a pure legal question (the issue was up on appeal after the trial court dismissed for failure to state a claim): does governmental immunity under the state tort claims
California Supreme Court Rewrites Eminent Domain Entry Statutes To Give Government A Free Pass
Today, in a case we’ve been following (because we filed a brief in support of the property owner), the California Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion essentially rewrote California’s precondemnation entry statute to give the government a pass.
The court assumed that entries which exceed the relatively minor entries contemplated by its prior
Pirate Of The Carribean: Govt Claiming Ownership And Clouding Title Is A Physical Taking
We’re not going to go into much detail about the Court of Federal Claims’ ruling in Katzin v. United States, No. 12-384L (July 15, 2016): (1) it’s long (44 single-spaced pages), (2) it’s a post-trial ruling and not from an appellate court, and (3) we’re busy today.
But we still recommend you read it
Illinois Supreme Court: Temporary Flooding Can Be A Taking, But There’s No Bright Lines In Flood Takings Cases
We were all set to post our thoughts on the Illinois Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Hampton v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, No. 119861 (July 8, 2016), when we were beaten to the punch by Erin Baker, an associate of our colleague (and fellow U. Hawaii law alum) Julie Tappendorf