This time last week, we were sitting in the North Carolina Supreme Court’s (very beautiful) courtroom, above, having just observed oral arguments in a case we’ve been following for quite a while, Chappell v. NCDOT, No. 51PA19 (docket here).
This case is the follow up (after remand) of the N.C. Supreme Court’s
Check out Marianist Province of the United States v. City of Kirkwood, No. 18-3076 (Dec. 13, 2019), for the U.S. Court of Appeals’ handling of RLUIPA and (state law) takings claims stemming from the city not allowing a religious school to light up its baseball field.
Today’s a busy day, so we won’t delve
Here’s the latest opinion about land use from the Hawaii Supreme Court. Unite Here! Local 5 v. Dep’t of Planning & Permitting, No. SCAP-17-823 (Haw. Dec. 13, 2019). Because our Damon Key partner Greg Kugle was the prevailing lawyer in the case, we won’t go into detail about the opinion, but leave it
Here’s the latest on the judicial takings/rent control case which we’ve been following.
This is the case where New York property owners assert that the N.Y. Court of Appeals’ decision which concluded that the luxury apartments (which were never formerly subject to rent control) are now governed by the Rent Stabilization Law. This
Here’s the amicus brief we filed yesterday in a public use case we’ve been following that asks whether pretext and private benefit are irrelevant as long as the condemnor invokes a “classic” public use. In this case, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned the court of appeals’ conclusion that even though the purported purpose of the
Here’s decision we’ve been anticipating in a case and issue we’ve been following for a while, the question of whether private utilities can be held liable under an inverse condemnation theory for much of the damages caused by the recent California wildfires.
Short story from the Northern District of California Bankruptcy Court: yes, private
Following up on the petition, filed last Friday, asking the Virginia Supreme Court to review a trial court’s demurrer which failed to recognize that the owners of a state lease to harvest oysters in the Nansemond River have a property interest . The court concluded that the city and santitation district possess a superior
Just filed: this Petition for Appeal in a case which our William and Mary Law class has a special interest in.
The above photo was taken a couple of weeks ago, when we paid a visit to the property owner/plaintiffs, the owners of a long-standing oyster business operating out of the City of Suffolk, Virginia.
We were not as creative as our colleague Paul Henry (see below), but our Planning Co-Chair Joe Waldo and I wanted to personally invite you to join the “big guns” in our area of law at the 37th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, January 23-25, 2020, in Nashville, Tennessee.
We’ve