Do regulations that exist at the time that a property owner purchases his land negate any expectation that he will be able to use the land productively? Not according to this amici brief, filed today in Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (cert. petititon filed June 5, 2013).
The cert petition asks the
Here’s the cert petition filed last week which asks the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s unpublished opinion in Mehaffy v. United States (Dec. 10, 2012). In that case, the court affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ grant of summary judgment to the government, holding that Mehaffy failed the Penn Central test solely because
Here’s the Reply Brief, filed by the petitioner/property owner in Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 12-918 (cert. petition filed Jan. 17, 2013).
That’s the case in which the Federal Circuit held that a 22-year old takings case was not ripe because even though the agency denied Hage’s every application for a grazing
Here’s the opinion of the California Court of Appeal (1st District) in an appeal we’ve been following, Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda, No. A30874 (May 9, 2013), affirming that the County of Alameda is liable for a temporary regulatory taking under Penn Central, and awarding the property owners nearly three-quarters of a
For those of you attending the Virginia Eminent Domain Conference, here’s the expanded papers on “Tough Takings Questions: Regulatory Takings, Zoning Issues and Judicial Takings” and Public Use issues.
Use the password provided at the conference to open the pdf’s. It’s the same p/w for both. If you forgot the password, email me.
For those who did not attend, sorry folks, there are some benefits to coming to a conference! Y’all are going to have to wait for a bit — after a decent interval to allow the attendees to get their money’s worth, we’ll remove the password.
For more about the cases and books we discussed yesterday during my presentation on “Virginia’s Place in National Eminent Domain Trends, check these out:
Continue Reading Materials From Today’s Virginia Eminent Domain Conference
This just in: the Ninth Circuit has issued an opinion in MHC Financing Ltd P’ship v. City of San Rafael, No. 07-15983 (Apr. 17, 2013), reversing the District Court’s decision that the city’s mobilehome rent control ordinance was a taking under Penn Central.
More, after a chance to review the opinion.
As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier reversed the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that government-induced flooding could not be a taking unless it was “permanent,” and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit for more.
Although the Federal Circuit indicated it would have preferred to avoid trying to deal with the issue (its order establishing
Koontz Sets The Stage
The apparent sticking point during the January oral arguments in n Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), came to light via Justice Scalia’s questioning of the property owner’s counsel about whether anything had been “taken” when a property owner refused to
Here’s more about the Federal Circuit’s decision in Lost Tree Village, a case we covered here: US Army Corps Denies A § 404 Permit: Can A Takings Claim Be Based OnConsideration Of The Economic Affect On the Wetlands Parcel Only? from Abbott & Kindermann’s Land Use Blog.
Earlier, we posted the initial briefs in Big Oak Farms, Inc. v. United States, a case now pending in the Court of Federal Claims. Or, more correctly, perhaps being revived in the CFC because it was dismissed earlier.
The property owner in Big Oak Farms is seeking compensation for the flooding of its land