I was reading this article in the San Francisco Chronicle about a dispute over whether a “concrete, flat-roofed Berkeley building [scroll down to the “Mobilized Women of Berkeley” listing] loosely linked to [architect] Bernard Maybeck” could be landmarked. According to the story:
The architect whose name is on the drawings of 1007 University Ave.
In WWBITV, Inc. v. Village of Rouses Point, No. 08-5112 (Dec. 9, 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a property owner whose building was demolished the day after it was badly damaged in a fire was not entitled to predeprivation notice.
After the building — an “old
In its annual summary of the U.S. Supreme Court term, the Harvard Law Review addresses the Court’s most important decisions, and this year includes the “ceded lands” case, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 129 S. Ct. 1463 (2009). [Disclosure: we filed a brief in the case in support of the State, available here
We promised in our earlier post on Mann v. Calumet City, No. 09-1681 (Dec. 7, 2009) that we were going to read the egg-sucking dog case, Hull v. Scruggs, 2 So.2d 543 (Miss. 1941). We have, and present it below in its full glory.
The rule of law in the case was summarized
Here’s an opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that’s worth reading, if only to see why we like reading Judge Posner’s writings:
No, not that Sgt Pepper taught the band to play (that was 20 years ago).
On Tuesday, December 4, 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979). My Damon Key colleagues Charlie Bocken and Diane Hastert briefed and argued a challenge to over
We’re continuing our summary of the oral arguments in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection,No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009), the case in which theCourt is considering the theory of “judicial takings” and whether statecourts are constrained by the Fifth Amendment if they suddenly and dramatically change stateproperty
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection,No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009), the case in which theCourt is considering the theory of “judicial takings” and whether statecourts are constrained by the Fifth Amendment if they suddenly and dramatically change stateproperty
On Wednesday, December 2, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the biggest takings case of the year, Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009). This is the case in which the Court is considering the theory of “judicial takings”
The Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro discusses Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009), the case being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.
We will post a preview of the arguments, but in the meantime, check out our resource page here (includes