The issue in in Filarksy v. Delia, No. 10-1018, yesterday’s opinion in which the unanimous Supreme Court held that a private lawyer who was retained by a local government is entitled to assert qualified immunity, was whether the lawyer was prohibited from asserting the defense merely because he was not formally employed by the
SCOTUS: Private Attorneys Hired By Govt Entitled To Assert Qualified Immunity
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion (by Chief Justice Roberts) in Filarksy v. Delia, No. 10-1018, holding that a private lawyer who was retained by a local government is entitled to assert qualified immunity. Along with my colleagues at the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law, I filed an
Not So Fast…
Last Friday, we noted that the Supreme Court was scheduled to consider whether to accept cert in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. petition filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s residential rent control law as a taking, among other things.
However, according to the Court’s docket report this morning, the
Conference Day For New York Rent Control Challenge
Most likely, by the time you read this, the Supreme Court will have decided whether to grant cert in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. petition filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s residential rent control law as a taking, among other things. Today, you see, is the day the Court
Petitioner’s Reply Brief In New York Rent Control Case: “Permanent dispossession is nine-tenths of this law”
Here is the Reply Brief in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (filed Mar. 20, 2012), the case in which a Manhattan property owner is challenging New York’s rent control law as unconstitutional:
Respondents confuse the issues with their scattershot assertions that rent stabilization concerns merely “landlord tenant relations,” “economic regulation,” “price controls” and “economic
What We Say To Courts
What owners of rent-controlled mobile home parks say to courts: “Unfair! Due Process! Rate-of-Return! Takings! Equal Protection!”
What courts hear: “blah blah DENIED blah blah blah DISMISSED blah blah blah AFFIRMED blah blah blah blah…”
Latest example: Besaro Mobile Home Park, LLC v. City of Fremont, No. A130753 (Mar. 1, 2012).
State’s BIO In New York Rent Control Case
Here’s the state’s BIO in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s rent control ordinance as a due process violation and as a taking. We posted the cert petition and the three amicus briefs in support here.
Both respondents waived their rights to file
Amicus Briefs In Manhattan Just Compensation Case
Here are the other two amicus briefs in support of the petitioner in River Center LLC v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of New York, No. 11-922 (cert. petition filed Jan. 23, 2012).
That’s the case in which a Manhattan property owner and developer is challenging the compensation awarded by New York courts for
BIO In New York Rent Control Case: Market Rents Are “Unjust, Unreasonable, And Oppressive”
Here’s the BIO in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s rent control ordinance as a due process violation and as a taking. Although the respondents waived their right to respond, the Court requested they file an opposition.
We posted the cert petition and the
Epstein On Physical And Regulatory Takings (Stanford L. Rev.)
The Stanford Law Review has been doing a good job lately of talking takings. Last week, it published a note about judicial takings and the Stop the Beach Renourishment case. Now comes the Law Review’s online edition with a new essay by Professor Richard Epstein, “Physical and Regulatory Takings: One Distinction Too Many,”