A short one from the Georgia Court of Appeals.
In Summerour v. City of Marietta, No. A16A0640 (July 8, 2016), the city condemned a grocery store for a recreation center. After multiple attempts to contact the property owner and multiple offers of compensation, the city and the owner finally began the negotiation process, during
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
Here’s one we’ve been meaning to post up for a while. Not because it isn’t an important decision, but because other things intervened.
In State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia Dep’t of Transportation v. Burnside, No. 15-1112 (June 13, 2016), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that under the statutory
Here’s the latest in that case we told you about a couple of months ago, a published ruling in an eminent domain case from the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. We wrote that in our view, the court got it really wrong on one of the three issues in the case, whether two parcels which
With apologies to Professor Kanner (who regularly features a “Lowball Watch” on his blog), we offer this report of Down v. Ministry of Transportation, No. LC140038 (May 12, 2016), a trial-level property owner victory by our Toronto colleague Shane Rayman (last seen in the pages of this blog winning a great case in the
The power company needed an easement across Hylton’s land for a transmission line. It made him an offer, backed by an appraisal. But that appraisal didn’t account for Hylton’s mineral rights, although it acknowledged that the property did contain two coal deposits, at least according to Hylton.
The parties “signed an agreement granting [the utility]
A very good crowd for today’s Oregon Eminent Domain Conference in Portland.
Here are the links to the cases and other materials that we spoke about today in our session “Inverse Condemnation and Regulatory Takings – Issues and Trends.”
Our thanks to Planning Chairs Jill Geleneau and Paul Sundermier for putting together a great
We won’t go into the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals’ opinion in Gomez v. Kanawha County Comm’n, No. 15-0342 (June 3, 2016) — it’s well-written and easily digested (all citations are in footnotes) — but point out these highlights:
As we head into the weekend, one more reminder about two worthwhile eventss being staged next week:
Programming note: On the day we remember our nation’s war dead, we thought we’d repost this one, about how Arlington National Cemetery came to be, and how yes, there’s a takings story there.
———————————————————
You know how we’re always saying that the provisions in the Takings Clause are “self-executing,” that even in the absence of