We’re continuing our Detroit-themed posts today, with this one about auto bailouts and takings.
We generally don’t post trial court decisions, preferring to wait until we have a published opinion from a court of appeals. But from time to time, we have made exceptions, like here, where the counsel involved are well-known and the issue
From the Ninth Circuit, a published opinion in a case challenging a Napa Valley city’s mobilehome rent control ordinance, Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. 12-17749 (Sep. 3, 2015). Here’s a complete summary of the issues in the case, along with the Ninth Circuit merits and amici briefs. We’ve been following it because
Takings nerd alert: we posted about this case late last year, when the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that two separate parcels owned by the same family must be treated as a single unit for purposes of determining whether there’s been a taking. Eventually, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review.
So here’s the next step, the
The headline of this post shouldn’t be that surprising, especially when the the property owner purchased the land already subject to a floodplain designation, and those regulations effectively prohibited development.
But the two twists in the South Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion in Columbia Venture, LLC v. Richland County, No. 27563 (Aug. 12, 2015), were
Here’s a short one from the Court of Appeals of Texas, Eighth District, involving how well a regulatory takings claim needs to be pleaded in a complaint.
In County of El Paso v. Navar, No 08-14-00250-CV (Aug. 7, 2015), the court held that a pro se plaintiff who alleged, among other things, that the
Our colleague William Wade, in addition to being an economist, is a prolific author on the topic we find fascinating, takings. He looks at the issues with an economists’ perspective, and we’ve found his articles very helpful. We’ve even posted a few over the years:
To those able to join us today for IMLA’s “The Takings Issue” webinar, thank you. Here are the links to the items which I discussed:
On Koontz:
In State ex rel. Dep’t of Transportation v. Eighth Judicial Circuit, No. 15-19376 (June 25, 2015), the Nevada Supreme Court covered territory addressed by other courts recently (see here by North Carolina, Florida, and here by California) — whether there’s a taking when an agency with the power of eminent domain
Everyone is distracted today by the too-big-to-fail “Obamacare” ruling by the 6-3 Supreme Court (or, as Justice Scalia called it “SCOTUScare“), in which the Court concluded that the vibe of a statute matters more than its actual language, and the Court’s ruling in the “disparate impact” fair housing case (speaking of which
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015, the American Planning Association is putting on the 2015 Planning Law Review, a program highlighting the most important and topical cases decided by the courts recently. Here’s the program description:
Planning feels the impact of decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, federal district courts, and state courts. How will