A must-read for takings mavens. Property rights gurus Professor Gideon Kanner and Michael Berger have published a new article, The Nasty, Brutish, and Short Life of Agins v. Tiburon, 50 Urb. Lawyer 1 (2019). It’s the lead article in the latest volume of The Urban Lawyer, the law journal of our Section of
PruneYard Undone: California’s Union Easement – Which Invites Labor Organizers To Enter Private Property – Isn’t A Physical Taking
The title of this post may have you wondering, especially the part about how a regulation that invites others to physically enter private property, is determined by a court to not be a physical taking. (The court also hints at looking at a physical taking under Penn Central, and not by applying per se
Tuesday Takings And Property Round-Up
Here’s what’s on the reading list for today:
- “Who owns the fertilized eggs? It’s a conundrum” from our Owners’ Counsel colleague Dwight Merriam, a piece about the property aspects of the question.
- “Dismissal of review in takings case restored precedential effect of Court of Appeal opinion” – the California Supreme
Indiana’s Right To Farm Act Isn’t A Taking
Nothing really can be done: the harsh reality is that CAFO’s (concentrated animal feeding operations) stink. But many state legislatures have concluded that farming and ranching are so important that the consequences (“externalities”) that naturally occur have to be accepted.
Right to Farm Acts, Indiana’s included, generally deprive neighboring property owners of their
Materials And Links From Today’s Austin Eminent Domain CLE
Great crowd today in Austin for CLE International’s Eminent Domain seminar, co-chaired by our colleagues Chris Clough, Sejin Brooks, and Christopher Oddo. We spoke about “National Trends and Developing Issues in Eminent Domain.”
Here are the cases I referred to which are not included in your written materials:
New Amici Brief: Investment, Not Profit, Is What The Takings Clause Recognizes
Here’s the amici brief we signed onto for Owners’ Counsel of America, filed last week in a regulatory takings case we’ve been following.
This brief, one of several filed which urge the Court to review the Federal Circuit’s conclusion there was no taking (despite a Court of Federal Claims verdict that there was)
New Cert Petition: You Don’t Need Positive Cash Flow To Have Investment-Backed Expectations
Here’s one we’ve been meaning to post for a while, the latest in a case we’ve been following. Yes, its the Love Terminal Partners cert petition.
Rather than go into the details about the case, we instead refer you to our post about the Federal Circuit’s opinion, the Court of Federal Claims verdict
Guest Post: Financial Inconsistency Bedevils Takings Decisions
Thank you to our colleague, economist William Wade, for sending along this piece, reacting to a recent decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
————————
Financial inconsistency bedevils takings decisions
This blog recently reported on a Massachusetts Appellate Court takings case ruling (Smyth v. Conservation Comm’n of Falmouth, No.
Mass App: Regulatory Takings Claims Don’t Get A Jury Trial
Rather than sum up the issue and the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s** conclusion in Smyth v. Conservation Comm’n of Falmouth, No. 17-P-1189 (Feb. 19, 2019), here’s the first part of the opinion:
GREEN, C.J. A land owner brought this action in the Superior Court, claiming that local land use regulation effected a taking of her
Mich App: Flint Water Plaintiffs Stated An Inverse Condemnation Claim
The “Flint water crisis,” which, as the opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals in Gulla v. State of Michigan, No. 340017 (Jan. 24, 2019), noted, is “the contamination of
plaintiffs’ water supply and their exposure to toxic and hazardous substances,” is all over the front pages. Which means it also spawned lawsuits.
The