As long-time readers know, we often kvetch about the way many courts ignore the Palazzolo rule that simply because someone obtains property subject to preexisting restrictions on use does not preclude them automatically from raising takings claims. See here, here, here, and here, for example. More about the Palazzolo case here, including
NH: Subdivision Of Nonconforming Lot Was Not Reasonably Likely – Availability Of A Variance Is A Factual, Not Legal, Question
Torromeo Industries owned a 12-acre parcel zoned “Industrial.” Two buildings — one a home, the other a 4,000 square foot industrial building — were on the land. Sole access to the property way by a private driveway along the 149 foot frontage of the parcel. Industrial zoning has a minimum lot size of 80,000 square
New Cert Petition: Seattle’s “First In Time” Tenant Rule Is A Taking And Due Processey
Here’s the cert petition we’ve been eagerly awaiting in a case we’ve been following about Seattle’s rewriting of the traditional lessor-lessee relationship.
The petition arose out of facial takings and due process challenges to Seattle’s “first in time” rule for residential leasing. The city adopted an ordinance requiring owners to rent to the first tenant
Unboxing The 2021 (Scottsdale) ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference Swag: Get Yours Today!
Missed out on the 2021 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference swag?
Well fear not: here’s your chance to get your high-class reminder — a kit of road warrior essentials — to save the Conference date on your calendar. We’re already underway with planning the agenda and faculty, so it’s never too soon
Pennsylvania Coal Revisited: Outlawing Silica Mining Isn’t A Taking, Even Though Mining Rights Are “Property” Under State Law
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following that involves a local government prohibiting, via a zoning ordinance, the mining of silica (used as “frac sand”). Kind of like how Pennsylvania barred certain coal mining in our old friend, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
In Minnesota (where our story
Cases And Materials From Today’s WM Law ACS Talk: “Pipelines at the Intersection of Environmental, Administrative, and Property Law: How Divergent Interests Joined Forces To Challenge Big Energy”
We just completed a fun hour-long talk with the students in the William and Mary Law School’s American Constitution Society, the Native American Law Society, and the Society on Environmental and Animal Law about the various pipeline cases that are ongoing nationwide. (If our tech worked, we shall post the audio recording in a future
IJ’s “Bound by Oath” Podcast, Ep. 9: Excessive Fines, 14th Amendment Incorporation (And The Just Compensation Clause)
Check out the latest (and final) episode of the Institute for Justice’s “Bound by Oath” podcast. IJ’s John K. Ross was kind enough to ask us to be a guest on the show titled “Excessive Fines,” and our friend and colleague Bob McNamara and I sat down in Nashville to record our
CA9: Remember That $1 The Court Awarded You For The Jury’s Finding Of A Regulatory Taking? We’re Taking That Away, Too
Here’s the latest in a long-running, multi-forum takings case about the development of affordable housing on the Big Island of Hawaii.
Last we saw, the District Court awarded nominal compensation ($1), after the jury concluded that the State of Hawaii took Aina Lea’s property. The parties cross-appealed: the State argues the district court should have
Williamson County, In Pictures
As we briefly noted in this post, before we departed the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference in Nashville, we just had to stop by the subdivision that was at issue in the Williamson County litigation.
Frankly, there’s nothing especially special or noteworthy about this place, and only takings nerds will truly
Tuesday Feb 11, 2020: Professors’ Corner – The Supreme Shift in Takings Litigation – Knick v. Township of Scott
Please mark your calendars and join us next Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 12:30pm ET for the free (for members of the ABA’s Real Property, Trust and Estate Section) webinar, the monthly “Professors’ Corner.”
This one will be on the aftermath of Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019), in which