Heading to court today, so haven’t had time to review this yet, but here’s the just-released transcript in today’s oral arguments in Comm’n on Ethics of the State of Nevada v. Carrigan, No. 10-568 (cert. granted Jan 7, 2011).
We previewed the arguments here.
Tomorrow (April 27, 2011), the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Comm’n on Ethics of the State of Nevada v. Carrigan, No. 10-568 (cert. granted Jan 7, 2011). In that case, the Court is considering whether a state statute that requires elected officials to recuse themselves from considering matters on which they
Here are the final four briefs in Comm’n on Ethics of the State of Nevada v. Carrigan, No. 10-568 (cert. granted Jan 7, 2011). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether a state statute which requires elected officials to recuse themselves from considering matters on which they appear to have conflicts
“This is not what we normally do. We do land use, real estate, development law. Heck, I can get you zoning to be an airport if that’s what you want. But I don’t represent inmates, I don’t represent people charged with crime, I don’t represent criminals.”
— Land Use attorney Joshua
Beginning at 9:00 a.m. Central Time today, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Severance v. Patterson, No. 09-0378 (Nov. 5, 2010), the case in which the court held 6-2 that Texas does not recognize a “rolling” public beachfront access easement, without proof of prescription. In March, the court agreed to rehear the
What we are reading today:
Here’s Bettendorf v. St. Croix County, No. 10-1359 (Jan. 20, 2011) a 2-1 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, another regulatory takings opinion we’ve been meaning to post for a while. The case involves a property owner’s claim that the county’s changing the zoning on his land from commercial
We’ve had the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Henry v. Jefferson County Comm’n, No. 09-1546 (Mar. 3, 2011) near the top of our to-read list for a while, because it is a regulatory takings case. But after finally reading it, realized that the opinion is a must read for
The April 2011 edition of the Zoning and Planning Law Report (West/Thomson Reuters) features my article Supreme Court Preview: Voting as Speech When a Government Official Has a Conflict of Interest – “Analogy Gone Wild” or First Amendment Right?, 34 Zoning & Planning L. Rptr. (Apr. 2011), which summarizes the issues in Comm’n on
In DeCook v. Rochester Int’l Airport Joint Zoning Bd., No. A09-96 (Mar. 30, 2011), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a $170,000 decrease in market value casued by an airport zoning ordinance was a compensable regulatory taking. Applying the Minnesota Constitution’s takings clause, the court held that when a regulation designed to benefit a