Our colleague Dwight Merriam reminds us that last year, a case related to a decision we posted about a couple of days ago was awarded a ZiPLeR.
Now in its thirteenth year, the award is presented by the Zoning and Planning Law Report for the “strangest, or at least more dramatic” land use cases each
In Muscarello v. Ogle County Board of Commissioners, No. 08-2464 (June 24, 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed as unripe a claim the county’s grant of a special use permit to a neighboring property owner allowing it to construct windmills on its land was a taking.
Ogle County granted Baileyville Wind Farms a
Most municipal zoning codes prohibit the operation of a “business” in a residential zone. Does this mean you can’t have a “home office” or take work-related calls at home? In most circumstances, doing so does not run afoul of the zoning code if the primary use of the home remains a dwelling house, and the
Here’s a round-up of reports and analysis of yesterday’s opinion by the New York Court of Appeals in the “Columbia U. blight” case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125:
More on today’s opinion in the “Columbia U. blight” case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125.
As we noted in our critique of the Atlantic Yards case (Goldstein), New York judges apparently are too “frightened and confused” by allegations that property is not truly “substandard or unsanitary,” so
We rarely post developments from trial courts, but every now and then a trial court order is so interesting that we deviate from our usual rule. Here’s one that’s worth sharing.
In Sterling v. California Coastal Comm’n, No. CIV. 482448 (Cal. Super. June 18, 2010), the San Mateo County Superior Court (the county immediately
Yesterday, we attended and posted a long summary of the en banc oral arguments in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, the case challenging the city’s mobile home rent control ordinance as a regulatory taking, now pending in the Ninth Circuit.
Today, the court posted the sound recording of the argument.
Download it here (caution
Continued from Part II
The court was not much easier on the City’s attorney, even though one might think that the hard time they gave the property owners’ counsel indicated they were more sympathetic to the City’s arguments.
Right off the bat, Judge Callahan asked Schwartz whether he “conceded” [appellate advocate alarm bells going off]
Continued from Part I
Coldron seemed to sense that the court was in danger of veering off track and buying into the argument in the amicus brief filed by the League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties in support of the city about the claim being time-barred. Judge Clifton returned to his
Even in the rarefied, academic atmosphere of an appellate court, an advocate must sometimes have a thick skin. Today’s Ninth Circuit en banc oral arguments in the rent control takings case, Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, was one where the two lawyers who argued the case certainly came away with a few callouses.
Guggenheim