There’s a bit of Inception-level dream-within-a-dream stuff in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s opinion in Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. LLC v. Permanent Easement for 7.053 Acres, No. 17-3700 (July 23, 2019), because the court held in takings by a private condemnor exercising the delegated power of eminent domain under the
Cases And Links From Today’s Eminent Domain And Pipelines Conference (Houston)
I am grateful that planning chairs Justin Hodge and Jeremy Baker invited me to their conference. A room full of experts. Here are the links to the cases and other items I spoke about:
- Knick v. Township of Scott: initial thoughts on what might be a dawning “golden age” of property cases
- Knick, Entirely
Cal App: Business Goodwill “is compensable separate and apart from the parties’ interests in the property taken.”
We were all set to offer our deep analysis of the California Court of Appeal’s recent (published) opinion in Three Aguila, Inc. v. Century Law Group, LLP, No. B289452 (July 2, 2019), when our colleagues at the California Eminent Domain Report blog beat us to it.
New Article: Restatement (SCOTUS) of Property – What Happened to Use in Murr v. Wisconsin?
Here’s the article, recently published in the UMKC Law Review with thoughts on Murr v. Wisconsin, the case about the “denominator” issue in regulatory takings cases.
We won’t get into it in detail (if you are interested, you can read the article yourself), except to say that therein we offer views of what
A Detour To The Vineyards Of Eminent Domaine
The title of this post isn’t poetic or figurative (like the windmills of your mind), it’s literal: for a field trip after the recent Oregon Eminent Domain Conference, we paid a visit to a nearby winery which — given its name, “Eminent Domaine” — we naturally could not resist. Besides, we already
Mark Your Calendars: Federalist Society Teleforum On Preliminary Injunctions In Natural Gas Act Takings: Is “Take Now, Pay Later” Unconstitutional? (Friday, June 21, 2019)
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
Links From Today’s Portland Eminent Domain Conference
Here are the links to the cases which were not in your materials. Theme of the day: amateurs!
Our thanks to colleagues Jill Gelineau and Paul Sundermier for asking us to present. It was good to see our Oregon friends again.
Alaska: You Only Get Interest On Compensation, Not On Attorneys’ Fees
In Keeton v. State of Alaska, No. 7366 (May 24, 2019), the Alaska Supreme Court held that a property owner is entitled to interest only on the “amount awarded” — the difference between the quick-take deposit and the eventual final judgment of compensation — and not on that amount plus the statutory attorneys’ fees
CA3 Amicus Brief: “Paired Sales” Isn’t Only Way To Prove Market Stigma Damages
Yesterday, on behalf of our Owners’ Counsel of America colleagues, we filed this request asking the U.S. Court of Appeals to consider our amicus brief in support of the property owners in a natural gas act pipeline case.
The issue is what evidence the trier of fact in a compensation trial may consider about “stigma”
AZ App: Private Utility Does Not Effect A Taking “until after trial and payment”
The Arizona Court of Appeals’ opinion in Arizona Electrical Power Cooperative v. DJL 2007 LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0097 (May 9, 2019), is about the date of valuation in eminent domain, but beyond that is interesting to us because it sheds light on a case we’ve been following about natural gas pipelines and the