Entry statutes are in the news lately. As we reported here for example, the California Supreme Court recently saved California’s entry statute from unconstitutionality by implying a requirement for a jury trial (and other eminent domain protections) when the entries which the condemnor seeks to undertake constitute takings.
In that case, the party seeking entry
Come on, you can admit it: reading judicial opinions about grammar rules and legislative history is about as exciting as watching paint dry. Or maybe it is more appropriate in this case to talk about old paint peeling. Because the Oregon Supreme Court’s opinion in Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Lake Oswego
It’s a good day. You win your takings case in the Texas Supreme Court. True, it’s a narrow 5-4 victory, and it merely reverses summary judgment against you, which means only that you live to fight another day. But a win is a win, we always say. The decision is based on the Texas Constitution, which
A very good crowd for today’s Oregon Eminent Domain Conference in Portland.
Here are the links to the cases and other materials that we spoke about today in our session “Inverse Condemnation and Regulatory Takings – Issues and Trends.”
Our thanks to Planning Chairs Jill Geleneau and Paul Sundermier for putting together a great
The plaintiffs in FLCT, Ltd. v. City of Frisco, No. 02-14-00335-CV (May 26, 2016), owned two adjoining parcels in the Dallas-Ft Worth area at the southeast corner what could be a very busy (and therefore profitable) intersection of two parkways. After checking with the city that the restriction in the Commercial zoning which prohibited
We’re tied up today, so can’t write much, but wanted to post this recent decision from the Court of Federal Claims. Here’s the court’s own summary:
Plaintiffs Love Terminal Partners, L.P. (“Love Terminal Partners”) and Virginia Aerospace, LLC (“Virginia Aerospace”) are leaseholders of property at Dallas Love Field Airport (“Love Field”), located in Dallas, Texas.
Continuing with our posting of the amicus briefs in Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, the “parcel as a whole” case now being considered by the Supreme Court, here is the brief filed in support of the property owner by several western states, principally authored by lawprof Ilya Somin.
Rather than summarize the brief here
Here’s the property owners’ Merits Brief, filed earlier this week in the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the “parcel as a whole” doctrine in regulatory takings (also known as the “denominator” issue).
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the owners did not have their property taken because
Today’s post is by colleague William Wade, an economist in Nashville, Tennessee, who has thought a lot — and written extensively — about the just compensation and damages available in inverse condemnation and regulatory takings cases.
He provides his thoughts on a recent trial court decision in a closely-watched Texas water case, in which the
Here’s what we’re reading today: