Here’s the cert petition that we’ve been waiting to drop in a case we’ve been following. Last we checked in, the Ninth Circuit (with concurral) had denied en banc review, over a dissental.
In Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma, 923 F.3d 524 (May 8, 2019), a 2-1 panel of the Ninth Circuit
Here’s a cert petition that we’ve been waiting to drop in a case we’ve been following. This one asks whether a state legislature’s virtual elimination of a cause of action is a taking.
The harsh reality is that farms and ranches can stink. But in Right to Farm Acts, many state legislatures, Indiana’s
We don’t often post trial court orders, but this one, Chiquita Canyon, LLC v. Cnty of Los Angeles, No. BS 171262 (Cal. Super. July 2, 2020), from the California Superior Court, is worth reading for you land use and exactions mavens.
It’s a long order, so we won’t go into great detail, but the
by David Lee Callies
Coming soon (August), a new book from lawprof David Callies on what might be our favorite subject, regulatory takings.
We had a chance to review the proofs, and we highly recommend this one for your bookshelf. We’ll bring you more once published. But for now, you can reserve your copy here
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following for what seems like forever. This is also a fact situation that has resulted in litigation in a variety of different fora, and at times has seemed like the final exam question in a Federal Courts law school class. We wrote about this latest
Breaking! In H.C. Cornuelle, Inc. v. City and Cnty of Honolulu, No. 14068 (Haw. July 17, 1990), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the City and County of Honolulu inversely condemned a strip of private property in downtown when it prohibited development and use of that land because the City intended to acquire it
Just published: the 2020 Zoning and Planning Law Handbook (Green Book). The first section of the Summary of Contents is about Takings, and includes as the lead piece Professor Gideon Kanner and Michael Berger’s tour-de-force article, “The Nasty, Brutish, and Short Life of Agins v. City of Tiburon.” It also includes
On one hand, the Colorado Supreme Court’s opinion in Forest View Co. v. Town of Monument, No.18SC793 (June 8, 2020), concluding that a restrictive covenant is not a property interest that the government needs to pay for conflicts with the decisions on similar facts from other jurisdictions (Kansas, for example). On the
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following (briefs here, and oral argument recording here).
Any eminent domain lawyer will tell you that loss of access cases can be difficult. In some jurisdictions, you have to lose all access before the court will consider you harmed. Or the courts see a
