As we’ve done every year lately, we’re soon headed to the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia.
This year, the B-K Property Rights Prize will be awarded to Harvard lawprof Joseph Singer, who is, shall we say, an interesting choice, given his theory that a “robust
We have learned that the North Carolina Supreme Court has granted the State’s request to review Kirby v. North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation, No. COA14-184 (Feb. 17, 2015).
That’s the case in which the Court of Appeals not only held that the property owners’ claims were ripe, but that the Map Act — which gives
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 14-275 (U.S. June 22, 2015), we were waiting for this shoe to drop. And now it has.
In “Raisin ruling seen as a lifeline for endangered species,” Environment & Energy writes, “[a] Supreme Court ruling that struck down an odd Depression-era raisin
Takings nerd alert: we posted about this case late last year, when the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that two separate parcels owned by the same family must be treated as a single unit for purposes of determining whether there’s been a taking. Eventually, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review.
So here’s the next step, the
The headline of this post shouldn’t be that surprising, especially when the the property owner purchased the land already subject to a floodplain designation, and those regulations effectively prohibited development.
But the two twists in the South Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion in Columbia Venture, LLC v. Richland County, No. 27563 (Aug. 12, 2015), were
Here’s a short one from the Court of Appeals of Texas, Eighth District, involving how well a regulatory takings claim needs to be pleaded in a complaint.
In County of El Paso v. Navar, No 08-14-00250-CV (Aug. 7, 2015), the court held that a pro se plaintiff who alleged, among other things, that the
To those able to join us today for IMLA’s “The Takings Issue” webinar, thank you. Here are the links to the items which I discussed:
On Koontz:
If you need CLE credits, you are in luck. There’s a plethora of upcoming programs that may be of interest to readers.
First, the ones we’re involved with:
“Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
Chief Justice Earl Warren,
Brown v. Board of Education
“The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact
Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.”
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
dissenting in Lochner v. New York
“…prejudice against discrete and insular minorities…”
Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, in footnote 4
