Here’s the amicus brief filed yesterday by the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, joined by Owners’ Counsel of America, in a case we’ve been following.
This case asks the Court to resolve a big outstanding issue: are legislatively-imposed exactions (however that term is defined) subject to the same
Here’s what we’re reading today:
The Indiana Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in Town of Clear Lake v. Hoagland Family Ltd. P’ship, No. 76A05-1606-PL-1241 (Apr. 6, 2017), doesn’t really involve inverse condemnation, except in the background. But we found it interesting nonetheless, because of the way the opinion finishes up, with a plethora of potty puns.
The case involved
Here’s the recording of the March 20, 2017 oral arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, the e “larger parcel” or “denominator” case.
The printed transcript is posted here, and our summary of the arguments is posted here. Our preview of the arguments, which includes link to the briefs, is here.
Here’s what we’re reading this Friday:
Here’s the cert petition, docketed yesterday, in a case we’ve been following on legislatively-imposed permit exactions, an issue in dire need of Supreme Court resolution.
Here’s the Question Presented:
A City of West Hollywood ordinance requires that builders of a proposed 11-unit condominium pay a $540,393.28 “affordable housing fee” to subsidize the construction of low-cost housing elsewhere
No, this isn’t the Supreme Court, it’s Graceland,
purchased by Elvis in March 1957.
(We’re just checking whether you are paying attention.)
Appellate oral argument, as they say, is supposed to be a “conversation” between the bench and counsel. But the overall impression we were left with after reviewing the transcript of yesterday’s Supreme Court
For those of you, like us, who were not able to be in DC for today’s oral arguments in the “larger parcel” or “denominator” case, Murr v. Wisconsin (see our preview of the arguments here), here’s the transcript, hot off the press.
As takings mavens are no doubt already aware, next Monday, the 8-Justice Supreme Court will hear arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, the regulatory takings case which asks whether the county can avoid application of the Lucas wipeout standard on one parcel by taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiffs also own the
Here’s what we’re reading this Monday: