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
Texas: “The requirement of compensation may make the regulatory scheme more expensive, but it does not affect the regulations themselves or their goals for groundwater production.”
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
Where The Sidewalk Ends: The Takings Power Is Different Than The Police Power
Here’s one court that gets its doctrine right. Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of Flagstaff, No. 1 CA-CV 10-0819 (Feb. 21, 2012).
A property owner challenged a city ordinance that requires a landowner repair adjacent public sidewalks, else the city will do it and send the owner the bill, and if the landowner doesn’t
Fed Cir Denies Rehearing/En Banc In CCA Case
As noted in this order. Next stop cert petition? More on the case here.
Links From Today’s IMLA Regulatory Takings Webinar
Here are the links to the cases and other items discussed today at the International Municipal Lawyers Association webinar with Dan Mandelker and Dwight Merriam. Most of these cases are also in your written materials.
- 9th Circuit: California Raisins Were Not Taken (Horne v. U.S.D.A., No. 10-15270 (9th Cir. July 25, 2011))
Petition For Rehearing/En Banc In CCA Associates: Time To “Sort Out” Takings Law
Count us in the “not surprised” column: the property owners have sought a panel rehearing or a rehearing en banc from the Federal Circuit in CCA Associates v. United States, No. 2010-5100 -5101 (Nov. 21, 2011).
The petition for rehearing asserts
If any case cried out for en banc review, this is the one.
Cal Ct App To City: Either Reverse Your Unconstitutional Spot Zoning, Or Pay. Your Choice.
We’re gearing up for a Supreme Court argument tomorrow, so don’t have time at the moment to digest the entirety of today’s opinion in Avenida San Juan P’ship v. City of San Clemente, No. G043479 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2011). But a quick glance tells us we’re going to like it.
A California
Federal Circuit: No Regulatory Taking Under Penn Central Test
Here’s the latest from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the court that hears appeals in most regulatory takings claims against the federal government), CCA Associaties v. United States, No. 2010-5100 -5101 (Nov. 21, 2011).
This is an appeal of a Court of Federal Claims decision holding that two federal statutes
Yosemite Seminar Summary – Regulatory Takings: Looking Back And Looking Forward
“Yosemite,” according to California Place Names, Erwin Gudde’s seminal work on the origins of (surprise) California place names, means “they are killers.” It was “[e]vidently a name given to the Indians of the valley by those outside it.”
I raise this historical tidbit because I must admit to feeling a little like “those outside
Links From “Regulatory Takings: Looking Back And Looking Forward” (Cal. State Bar Yosemite Conference)
Here are the links to the cases and other items discussed today at the session Regulatory Takings – Looking Back and Looking Forward at the Cal State Bar’s Environmental Law Section’s Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite.
These cases are also in your written materials.