As readers may be aware, I’ll be taking over as Chair of the ABA’s Section of State and Local Government Law in a couple of months. I understand that many of my colleagues do not see the value in ABA participation, and I’ve explained why I do so here. It’s been a wonderful way
Recording – “Takings: Emerging Issues” ABA State & Local Government Law Section Talk
Here’s the audio recording of the talk we gave to the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law’s Land Use Committee earlier today. (Some of you may note that in the intro we say the talk was on “June 17,” but since that’s tomorrow, we assume you understand that is just an error.)
The
Links From Today’s ABA Presentation – “Takings: Emerging Issues”
Update: the audio recording is posted here.
* * * *
Here are the links to the cases we mentioned in today’s ABA State and Local Government Law Section presentation, “Takings: Emerging Issues.”
The “Larger Parcel” In Regulatory Takings (and Eminent Domain)
Upcoming Free Takings Talk (Friday, June 16, 2017). But There’s A Catch…
Mark your calendars for this Friday, June 16, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time for a free talk we’ll be giving, “Regulatory Takings: Emerging Issues.”
Yes, it’s free, but there’s a catch: this talk is sponsored by the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law’s Land Use Committee, and you have to
Michiganders: Go Ahead, File Your Federal Regulatory Taking And Inverse Condemnation Claims In Federal Court
You heard that right. After the Michigan Court of Appeals’ recent ruling in Lanzi v. Township of St. Clair, No. 329795 (May 23, 2017), you should consider skipping the usual Williamson County step of filing your federal takings claims in state court.
In that case, property owners sued the township after the township’s sewage
SCOTUS: To Intervene As A Plaintiff (In A Takings Case), You Need Article III Standing (Duh)
Here’s the unanimous Supreme Court opinion, issued this morning in a case we’ve been following, Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, No. 16-605 (June 5, 2017), a takings case, although the issue resolved by the Court is one of civil procedure.
The Court’s holding is remarkably unremarkable: a plaintiff — including a plaintiff
Who Owes And Who Pays Taxes On Property Being Condemned?
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been tracking, the City of Missoula, Montana’s takeover of a privately-owned water system. Last year, the Montana Supreme Court held that the city could exercise its power of eminent domain to take the property for a “more necessary” public use. The court allowed the city to take the
Federal Court Dismisses Removed Takings Claim Under Williamson County … And That’s OK
We don’t normally post trial court decisions, particularly ones which simply dismiss a case. But the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s recent memorandum order in The Property Management Group, Ltd. v. City of Philadelphia, No. 17-1260 (May 23, 2017), which deals in part with a somewhat unusual takings claim, is
Cases And Links From Washington Eminent Domain Conference
My thanks to Bart Freedman (K&L Gates) and Kinnon Williams (Inslee Best Doezie & Ryder) for asking me to speak on national takings and inverse condemnation issues at yesterday’s Eminent Domain conference in Seattle.
As you can see, the room was packed and standing room only. Here are the cases and issues I mentioned
Hawaii Supreme Court – Major Eminent Domain Opinion: Larger Parcel, Deposit
Yesterday, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion opinion authored by Justice Nakayama in an eminent domain case we’ve been following. We filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the property owner on one of the three issues presented, too. More on that below.
The case involves three parcels on Kauai — one