Check out City of Kemah v. Crow, No. 01-23-00417-CV (July 25, 2024), from the Texas Court of Appeal (First District).
This is yet another takings ripeness case — here, the so-called “final decision” requirement — the second recent opinion on this issue from the Texas court. See “Final Decision Takings Ripeness Is Based
Check out this decision, entered by a Rhode Island Superior Court (a general jurisdiction trial court) denying the State’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that a recently-adopted statute shifting the boundary between public and private property on RI’s beaches is a taking.
We won’t be commenting in too much detail because this
Check this out: our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues (Brian Hodges and Deborah La Fetra we on our Sheetz SCOTUS team), have posted a new scholarly piece on SSRN, “Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: Legislatures Must Comply with the Takings Clause.”
Here’s the Abstract:
For more than 30 years, the Supreme Court
Check out this decision, entered by a Rhode Island Superior Court (a general jurisdiction trial court) denying the State’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that a recently-adopted statute shifting the boundary between public and private property on RI’s beaches is a taking.
We won’t be commenting in too much detail because this
Today at 10am Hawaii Time (1pm PT/4pm ET), the Hawaii Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case asking whether a 1922 deed restriction imposed by the Territory of Hawaii on a land patent conveying fee simple title to a private owner, subject to the land always being used for “church purposes” (i.e
DJK was adding a bedroom to an existing residence and needed a wastewater permit from Vermont’s environmental agency. The agency has a “presumptive isolation zone” around potable water supplies and septic systems in which a property owner is presumed to be barred from doing anything sewage related. In this case, the isolation zone for DJK’s
Disclosure: this one is one of ours, so we’re not going to do a deep dive or do much commentary (must resist!).
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court granted a Los Osos property owner’s petition, and agreed to review an (unpublished) Court of Appeal opinion which held that the California Coastal Commission has
Here are three federal circuit opinions, all unpublished. None of them worthy of a stand-alone post, but also not to be overlooked entirely.
Readers know that from time-to-time, we like to cover the going’s on in the courts of our neighbors to the north. See here and here, for example. Although property rights are not a constitutional principle in Canada (the people did not include property as a fundamental constitutional right when the Constitution was amended last)
It was on this day in 1928 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its second most famous decision about zoning, Nectow v. City of Cambridge., 277 U.S. 183 (1928).
We say “second” because everyone knows that the first is the Court’s decision issued just two years earlier which generally upheld comprehensive use, height, and
