Municipal & Local Govt law

IMG_20161026_112153

Here’s what we’re reading today:

Today is Good Friday, an official state holiday in Hawaii, so we’re reposting our annual recounting of how it came to be that the State commemorates the date of the crucifixion, and how that squares with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Turns out that we don’t really commemorate today as the crucifixion date

The Indiana Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in Town of Clear Lake v. Hoagland Family Ltd. P’ship, No. 76A05-1606-PL-1241 (Apr. 6, 2017), doesn’t really involve inverse condemnation, except in the background. But we found it interesting nonetheless, because of the way the opinion finishes up, with a plethora of potty puns.

The case involved

Here’s the recording of the March 20, 2017 oral arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, the e “larger parcel” or “denominator” case.

The printed transcript is posted here, and our summary of the arguments is posted here. Our preview of the arguments, which includes link to the briefs, is here.

Under Nebraska law, Natural Resource Districts possess the power of eminent domain, delegated to them by the state legislature. The question in Estermann v. Bose, No. S-15-1022 (Apr. 7, 2017) was whether four of those NRD’s could, in turn, re-delegate that power to a new agency which they jointly formed under the Interlocal Cooperation

Here’s what we’re reading this Friday:

Here’s the cert petition, docketed yesterday, in a case we’ve been following on legislatively-imposed permit exactions, an issue in dire need of Supreme Court resolution. 

Here’s the Question Presented:

A City of West Hollywood ordinance requires that builders of a proposed 11-unit condominium pay a $540,393.28 “affordable housing fee” to subsidize the construction of low-cost housing elsewhere

2010-03-19 13.36.36
No, this isn’t the Supreme Court, it’s Graceland,
purchased by Elvis in March 1957.

(We’re just checking whether you are paying attention.) 

Appellate oral argument, as they say, is supposed to be a “conversation” between the bench and counsel. But the overall impression we were left with after reviewing the transcript of yesterday’s Supreme Court

For those of you, like us, who were not able to be in DC for today’s oral arguments in the “larger parcel” or “denominator” case,  Murr v. Wisconsin (see our preview of the arguments here), here’s the transcript, hot off the press.

Transcript, Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-215 (Mar. 20, 2017)