Don’t worry, you didn’t miss the U.S. Supreme Court issuing a major eminent domain case. Today’s post is about a decidedly older decision, Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271 (1939).
The reason we’re posting this decision now, eighty years after it was issued, is that a colleague recently passed on a note with
Here’s the amici brief we’re filing today on behalf of the Owners’ Counsel of America, New Jersey property owners subject to natural gas pipeline takings, the Institute for Justice, and the Cato Institute, in support of a cert petition which is challenging the federal courts of appeals which have upheld giving prejudgment possession of property
Usually, when we’re scanning the daily email from the Federal Circuit for takings decisions of interest, we look for “United States” as the defendant, and our eyes glaze over the other cases on the court’s docket such as patent matters. But today, we were rewarded: a takings issue in a patent matter.
Here’s the latest cert petition about an issue we’ve been following closely. Givens v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, No. ___ (July 3, 2019)
As regular readers understand, several federal courts of appeals recently have upheld giving prejudgment possession of property to a private pipeline condemnor once a district has ruled in favor of the
Here’s a question. Domestic partnership hit the skids, ended up in Family Court. That court did what family courts do and divided up the couple’s assets. The partners were not married, so one of the issues was whether they were in a “committed intimate relationship.” Family court held no. Decision appealed, and eventually sent back to
This is the fourth in our series of five posts with thoughts on the landmark decision in Knick. In this installment, the dissent. Related posts:
The details are yet to be posted on the web, but mark your calendars now for an upcoming (two weeks from today, on Friday, June 21, 2019) Federalist Society teleforum, produced by the Environmental and Property Rights Practice Group, about an issue that we’ve been following that is the subject of at least three
With the opinion in the Knick v. Township of Scott case to drop as soon as Tuesday (we’re guessing the opinion will be by Chief Justice Roberts, by the way), hold on: we’re about to get super nerdy here. Impossibly nerdy. Yes, we’re revisiting the Star Trek analogies. We’ve been down this road before
The title of this post may have you wondering, especially the part about how a regulation that invites others to physically enter private property, is determined by a court to not be a physical taking. (The court also hints at looking at a physical taking under Penn Central, and not by applying per se
Great crowd today in Austin for CLE International’s Eminent Domain seminar, co-chaired by our colleagues Chris Clough, Sejin Brooks, and Christopher Oddo. We spoke about “National Trends and Developing Issues in Eminent Domain.”
Here are the cases I referred to which are not included in your written materials: