Thursday-Saturday, February 17-19, 2011, come join us for the 28th annual presentation of the advanced-level ALI-ABA Course of Study, Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation, and the sixth annual presentation of the basic-level ALI-ABA Course of Study, Condemnation 101: Making the Complex Simple in Eminent Domain, both at the Hyatt Regency in Coral Gables
We use “takings,” “Takings Clause” and “Fifth Amendment rights” as a convenient shorthand for the right of property owners to object or obtain compensation when a government act has so interefered with their rights that it might as well have exercised eminent domain. Every now and then, we need a reminder that the Takings Clause
Remember that now-iconic scene in The Fugitive, where Harrison Ford’s character has turned the tables on Tommy Lee Jones, and while holding Jones at gunpoint proclaims, “I didn’t kill my wife!”
Jones’ response — “I don’t care!“ — could just as easily apply to regulatory takings law, especially where a property owner
Last month, we attended the oral arguments in the rehearing en banc of Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 582 F.3d 996 (9th Cir., Sep. 28, 2009).
The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel held 2-1 that a takings challenge was ripe under Williamson County, and ruled the City of Goleta, California’s ordinance was a facial
Here at inversecondemnation.com we also cover eminent domain, regulatory takings, land use, and environmental issues. We even cover election law when it strikes our fancy.
But here’s one that’s in our core competency: in Frick v. City of Salina, No. 101,355 (July 9, 2010) the Kansas Supreme Court held that property
Yesterday, we attended and posted a long summary of the en banc oral arguments in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, the case challenging the city’s mobile home rent control ordinance as a regulatory taking, now pending in the Ninth Circuit.
Today, the court posted the sound recording of the argument.
Download it here (caution
Continued from Part II
The court was not much easier on the City’s attorney, even though one might think that the hard time they gave the property owners’ counsel indicated they were more sympathetic to the City’s arguments.
Right off the bat, Judge Callahan asked Schwartz whether he “conceded” [appellate advocate alarm bells going off]
Continued from Part I
Coldron seemed to sense that the court was in danger of veering off track and buying into the argument in the amicus brief filed by the League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties in support of the city about the claim being time-barred. Judge Clifton returned to his
Even in the rarefied, academic atmosphere of an appellate court, an advocate must sometimes have a thick skin. Today’s Ninth Circuit en banc oral arguments in the rent control takings case, Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, was one where the two lawyers who argued the case certainly came away with a few callouses.
Guggenheim