You remember, don’t you? In the early days of the Co-19 epidemic, government and public health authorities were scrambling to do something … sometimes anything! … to respond.
Dare County, North Carolina might have been one of those local governments that went maybe just a bit too far in the precaution vs effectiveness departments:
Here’s your chance to spend some time with the author of one of the hottest land use and public policy books out there, Nolan Gray.
RSVP now (admission free, but space is limited) to join our Land Use class when we welcome Mr. Gray to respond to the question in the title of this post.
If your first reaction to the Texas Court of Appeals (First District)’s decision in City of Houston v. The Commons of Lake Houston, Ltd., No. 01-21-00369-DV (Jan. 12, 2023) is scratching your head, then please come join us in bewilderment.
After all, the court held that a takings claim failed because the city
We really want you there…
One (nearly) last reminder that there’s still time to register for your space at the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 1-4, 2023, in Austin. In the past several years, we have sold out due to the conference room capacity and the conference hotel block.
Saturday in the park…I think it was the Fourth of July
Here’s the latest on a case we’ve been following, about the blocking off of a neighborhood in Seattle and making it a no-go zone for those whom the takeoverers wanted to keep out.
Yes, the CHOP/CHAZ case is still a thing. [And before we
Here at inversecondemnation.com, we were all set to call it a week and take a break from posting until Monday.
But SCOTUS had other ideas.
In this Order issued today, it agreed to review Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, a case and an issue we’ve been following closely.
The Questions
When we first read the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in PEM Entities, LLC v. County of Franklin, No. 21-1317 (Jan. 5, 2023), our reaction was one of skepticism. After all, at first blush, the court seemed to have concluded that in order to possess a property right protected by the Takings Clause, the
You know the “amortization” doctrine: when an existing legal use is declared illegal, the government can avoid a takings claim by slowly phasing out the use, supposedly to allow the owner to recoup investment. The doctrine is established in Maryland by Grant v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 129 A.2d 363 (Md.
Check this out, a decision upholding a necessity challenge to a taking.
Necessity, you say? What’s this? Aren’t necessity challenges subject to an even more deferential judicial standard of review than the rational basis test applied to declarations of public use? Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court in Adirondack Ry. Co. v. New York, 176
This week is light for many of you, so instead of the deep and insightful analysis of recent decisions that we’re known for (ha), we instead recommend to you two podcasts to warm the chilly nights.
So fire up the hearth, strap on those earbuds, and listen away.
First up, what is quickly becoming a