If you understand that headline, congratulations: you are officially a takings geek.
Here’s another piece worth reading, to prepare yourself for next week’s oral arguments in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012): Is the federal government shifting the focus in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission?…
Here’s the property owner/petitioner’s Reply Brief in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the Supreme Court takings case scheduled to be argued on October 3, 2012.
The Federal Circuit held that flooding caused by the Corps was only temporary that destroyed G&F’s trees did not…
Here’s the federal government’s merits brief in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the case in which the Federal Circuit held that flooding caused by the Corps of Engineers was only temporary, and did not result in a compensable taking merely because it eventually stopped…
We are at the ABA Annual meeting this week, so don’t have a lot of time to keep up a long-distance practice and write up comprehensive blog posts, so we’re going to keep it short.
Here’s the latest takings decision from the Federal Circuit in a case we’ve been following, Estate of Hage v. United States…
In a case that was probably doomed from the start because of an earlier precedential ruling, the Federal Circuit concluded that the government’s temporary seizure of the plaintiff’s computer “for review” at a border stop and the subsequent destruction of the computer hard drive and resulting loss of data was not a taking because…
Here’s a key amicus brief in support of the cert petition in CCA Associates v. United States, No. 11-1353 (cert. petition filed May 8, 2012). In that case, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that it was a taking for Congress to prohibit a property owner from prepaying a government-issued mortgage, which required it…
Here’s the cert petition asking the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in CCA Associates v. United States, a case we’ve been following since it was being argued in the Court of Federal Claims. The CFC found a taking, but the Federal Circuit reversed, and then denied en banc review.
We couldn’t post much last week due to a pressing engagement on Friday before a three-judge federal district court (the case challenging Hawaii’s latest state reapportionment plan on Equal Protection grounds in which we represent the plaintiffs — more here). But the court took the matter under submission, so while we are awaiting a…
The Penn Central test — reaffirmed in Lingle as the regulatory takings “benchmark” in all but a few cases — is one of those “factor” tests in which the trier of fact is supposed to examine three things: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the property; (2) the interference with investment-backed expectations, and…
This just arrived: in Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Day, No. 08-0964 (Feb. 24, 2012), the Texas Supreme Court, applying the Penn Central test, held that the government is not entitled to summary judgment because “the three Penn Central factors do not support summary judgment for the Authority and the State. A full development of…
