What we are reading today:
If you are a fan of Penn Central‘s “investment-backed expectations” factor, or the “notice” defense thought to be put to rest in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), this is your week.
Earlier this week, we posted our amicus brief in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 10-1125, which argued
The city has filed its Brief in Opposition in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 10-1125.
That’s the case in which the owners of a mobile home park asserted the city’s mobile home rent control ordinance which the city adopted in 2002, is a taking under the three factor ad hoc test in Penn
In CRV Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 626 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the court that hears appeals in regulatory taking and inverse condemnation cases against the federal government) held the EPA’s installation of a log boom on a navigable waterway in California’s central valley
Today, on behalf of the Manufactured Housing Institute, we filed this amicus brief (also available below) in the U.S. Supreme Court in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 10-1125 (petition for cert. filed Mar. 11, 2011). In that case, California mobile home park owners are asking the Court to review the decision of
In CCA Associates v. United States, No. 97-334C (Jan. 29, 2010), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that two federal statutes worked a taking under the three-part Penn Central test because it abrogated the rights of the owner of a Louisiana apartment building to prepay its way out of providing low income housing.
We’ve had the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Henry v. Jefferson County Comm’n, No. 09-1546 (Mar. 3, 2011) near the top of our to-read list for a while, because it is a regulatory takings case. But after finally reading it, realized that the opinion is a must read for
In DeCook v. Rochester Int’l Airport Joint Zoning Bd., No. A09-96 (Mar. 30, 2011), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a $170,000 decrease in market value casued by an airport zoning ordinance was a compensable regulatory taking. Applying the Minnesota Constitution’s takings clause, the court held that when a regulation designed to benefit a
The last chapter in the Ninth Circuit’s rent control saga has not been written. In Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 06-56306 (Dec. 22, 2010), a sharply divided en banc Ninth Circuit concluded that Goleta’s mobile home rent control ordinance was not a taking under the three-factor regulatory taking test of Penn Central Transportation
In California Trailer Parks War: Owners Vs. Renters, Time magazine takes a look at the mobile home rent control issues behind the recent Ninth Circuit en banc opinion in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta (our resource page on the case is here). Be sure to take the article’s implicit conclusion (the mobile home