Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. This is GHP Management Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 24-435, the cert petition which asks whether a local ordinance which allowed non-paying tenants to remain in the lessor’s property is a physical taking, or merely the regulation of the lessor/lessee relationship under
“I Like Old Property” – We Return To The “Short Circuit” Podcast To Talk Law Of The Land & Magna Carta
You should already know Short Circuit is the Institute for Justice’s frequently-updated podcast on important and interesting decisions from the federal courts of appeals (the “Circuit” part of the title, we assume).
If you are not already a regular listener you are missing out, because it is a fantastic and easy way to keep up
2025 Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute, Denver (March 5-7, Denver U. Law School)
Registration is open and underway for this year’s edition of the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute in Denver, March 5-7, 2025. Location: University of Denver Sturm College of Law.
This conference is more what we’ll call “land usey” than ALI-CLE’s Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (as the respective titles suggest), but there’s a
Fourth Branch Podcast: Talcott & Kochan On “Rebuilding California: Lessons from the Pacific Palisades Fire”
Check this out, a recent Fourth Branch pod featuring lawprof Donald Kochan and our law firm colleague Jeremy Talcott, “Explainer Episode 85 – Rebuilding California: Lessons from the Pacific Palisades Fire.”
Here’s the description:
The 2025 Pacific Palisades Fire has underscored the challenges of building in California’s complex regulatory landscape. In response
Feb. 16, 1833: Unhappy 192d Birthday To The First SCOTUS Takings Case, Barron v. Baltimore
This Sunday, February 16, 2025, will be the day, 192 years ago, when — a mere 5 days after oral arguments — the U.S. Supreme Court issued its (in)famous opinion in Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833).
Generations of law students study this decision in
New Article (Eric Claeys): “Takings and Choice of Law After Tyler v. Hennepin County”
Check out this article, forthcoming in the George Mason Journal of Law, Economics, and Policy from lawprof Eric Claeys, “Takings and Choice of Law After Tyler v. Hennepin County.”
This is one of the pieces coming out of the recent symposium “Imaging the Future of Regulatory Takings” at George Mason Law School.
Here’s the Abstract:
This Essay contributes to a symposium on the future of regulatory takings. It focuses on choice of law in eminent domain disputes. When claimants bring eminent domain claims in federal courts, the courts must determine whether the claimants have constitutional “private property” in the entitlements allegedly taken. Should that determination be made with federal law, with the law of the state allegedly taking property, or law from some other source?
The 2023 Supreme Court decision Tyler v. Hennepin County addressed that issue. Under Tyler, it is a federal question whether an eminent domain claimant has constitutional private property. To answer the question, federal courts usually consult the law of the state where the alleged taking took place. But that presumption applies only if state law seems to secure and not to circumvent the federal right. And if that reservation is not satisfied, federal courts may consult a wider pattern of legal sources—Anglo-American history, the general law of the several United States, federal court precedents, and a broader cross-section of law from the state allegedly taking property. That approach resembles the approach taken generally for federal constitutional rights—especially in Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand (1938)—but varies from the general approach in the sources it makes relevant to settle what counts as private property under the Fifth Amendment. This Essay interprets Tyler, and it offers a normative justification for Tyler’s approach to choice of law in eminent domain.
Don’t miss this one.Continue Reading New Article (Eric Claeys): “Takings and Choice of Law After Tyler v. Hennepin County”
Mass SJC: State Requiring Municipalities To Adopt Multi-Family Zoning Is Enforceable By AG…But
The only courthouse we know where the Supreme Court
is below the Court of Appeals (SJC on the second floor,
appellate court on the third)
A brief one from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
In Attorney General v. Town of Milton, No. SJC-13580 (Jan. 8, 2025), the court rejected a challenge to
CA4: Challenge Public Use/Pretext Under Due Process And § 1983, Not Inverse
The facts in D.A. Realestate Inv., LLC v. City of Norfolk, No. 23-1863 (Jan. 16, 2025), a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, are fairly sympathetic. And the opinion starts off with a tantalizing quote:
In 1761, Massachusetts lawyer James Otis exclaimed “one of the most essential branches
Two New Cert Petitions (Ours) – 50 Years Of Fruitless Trying Is Enough: Overrule Or Clarify Penn Central!
Two — count ’em two! — cert petitions from our shop, filed today. Both call for “clarifying or overruling” Penn Central.
Oh, have I got your attention now?
- Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, The Gym 24/7 Fitness, LLC v. Michigan, No. 24-____ (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025)
- Petition for a Writ of Certiorari,
NJ’s Forfeiture Statute Is A Taking Of Surplus Home Equity
If you thought the issue of whether it is a Fifth Amendment taking for a state or local government to “keep the change” after satisfying a tax debt was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), you’d be right.
Then what was there left for the