In Midwest Materials, Inc. v. Wilson, No. 84A04-1205-MI-258 (Feb. 27, 2013), the Indiana Court of Appeals held that Midwest did not suffer a taking for the loss of its property during the time a requirement that it provide water service to neighboring residences as a condition of a “special exception” needed to build a
Links And Materials From Today’s ABA Takings Teleconference
Here are the links to the materials and briefs from the Supreme Court’s three taking cases which we are discussing at today’s teleconference sponsored by the ABA’s Section on Litigation’s Environmental Litigation Commitee and the Condemnation, Zoning, and Land Use Committee.
Post-telecon note: thanks to everyone for joining us. I will be posting up the
Still Time To Join Us Tomorrow For ABA Takings Roundable (Free!)
Did we say free? (If you are an ABA member, that is.)
Join us for a teleconference jointly sponsored by the ABA’s Section on Litigation’s Environmental Litigation Commitee and the Condemnation, Zoning, and Land Use Committee to discuss the latest and greatest in takings law, specifically the three cases the U.S. Supreme Court is ruling
IMLA Amicus Brief In California Raisin Takings Case: Tucker Act Is Exclusive Method Of Raising Takings Arguments
Here’s the amicus brief filed today on behalf of the International Municipal Lawyers Association in Horne v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 12-123 (cert. granted Nov. 20, 2012). The brief argues:
Petitioners have needlessly complicated the vindication of their asserted rights under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by failing to file
Tuesday Tidbits
Here’s what we’re reading on this Tuesday-after-a-long-weekend:
- “Economic Impact in Regulatory Takings Law,” a forthcoming article by lawprof Steven J. Eagle about one of the prongs of the Penn Central takings test. Professor Eagle “concludes that unresolved issues and complexities in adjudicating the ‘economic impact of the regulation on the claimant’ test provide
ABA Takings Roundtable – The U.S. Supreme Court Property Rights Cases – Feb. 26, 2013
If you are a member of the ABA, mark your calendars for Tuesday, February 26, 2013, noon to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time, for a free teleconference jointly sponsored by the ABA’s Section on Litigation’s Environmental Litigation Commitee and the Condemnation, Zoning, and Land Use Committee to discuss the latest and greatest in takings law
Wednesday Round-Up: Grand Central, Oysters No More, And Originalist Takings
What we’re reading today:
- Grand Central Station and The Takings Clause – from the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, a link to a WNYC/NPR podcast about Grand Central Terminal and the Penn Central takings case. Worth listening, if only to hear the money quote near the end: “you see New Yorkers all the time staking claim
New Cert Petition: Is Interference With Use Of Vested Water Right A Per Se Or Penn Central Taking?
We’re sensing a trend here: takings cases where the property owners/plaintiffs are dead by the time their cases get considered by the Supreme Court. The week before last, the Court heard arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), a case where the original landowner
Temporary Takings, Tahoe Sierra, and the Denominator Problem
Thanks to the folks at the Environmental Law Institute, who have allowed us to reprint an article from a recent Environmental Law Reporter which brings some clarity to the subject of the “denominator” issue in regulatory takings.
In Temporary Takings, Tahoe Sierra, and the Denominator Problem, William W. Wade, Ph.D., a resource
More On Koontz Oral Arguments: Is Nollan A Theory Dependent Upon Accepting An Unconsitutional Condition, Then Challenging It As A Taking?
We’re tied up all day in the 10th Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, but two other bloggers have stepped up to fill the gap, offering cogent analysis and some contrarian thoughts about the recent oral arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012).
Most