I just received my copy of the latest edition of Professor Steven J. Eagle‘s definitive treatise Regulatory Takings (Lexis/Nexis, 4th ed. Dec. 2009).
Like the earlier editions, this is a must-have for every land use and property law attorney’s back bookshelf.
Chapters include “Property Rights and Their Sources,” “The Ascendancyof Land Use Regulation,” “Analytical
Four amicus briefs have been filed in Macerich Management Co. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 568, No. 09-235 (cert. petition filed Aug. 24, 2009), urging the Supreme Court to review United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 848 v. National Labor Relations Bd., 540 F.3d 957
In a lengthy opinion — it comes in two volumes — the Ninth Circuit again takes on a mobile home rent control ordinance, this time with a better result than usual for the property owners. The court determined the ordinance worked a taking, and remanded the case for a calculation of just compensation. Guggenheim v.
In a case that’s highly topical given the current health care debate, in Franklin Memorial Hospital v. Harvey, No. 08-2550 (Aug. 5, 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that Maine’s requirement that hospitals provide free medical services to certain low income patients is not a regulatory taking.
The not-for-profit
The US Court of Appeals has reversed the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of a takings case, holding the right to develop land is property protected by the Takings Clause. In Schooner Harbor Ventures, Inc. v. United States, No. 2008-5084 (June 16, 2009), the property owner claimed a designation of its property (Site 28)
Economist Bill Wade offers his thoughts on the recent (and latest) Rose Acre decision by the Federal Circuit, a case we summarized here.
__________________________________
Of shoes and ships, eggs and farms; Or, Penn Central through the Looking Glass
by William W. Wade, Ph.D.
Fans of arcane takings decisions will not find a more economically
Okay, we’ve decided to surrender to temptation and let fly with bad (and obvious) egg puns. But at least they’re out of our system in the beginning. After that, no more yolks. We promise.
In Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. United States,No. 2007-5169 (Mar. 12, 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals for theFederal Circuit
It’s easy to blog a case when you or your colleagues win it, and we’ve had plenty to talk about lately in that department in eminent domain and zoning law.
On the other hand, it’s not so easy to write about a case when you don’t prevail. Today is one of those days. The
Here are the links to the cases that I spoke about in my session in today’s seminar “Supreme Court, Regulatory Takings and Eminent Domain Update.” Not all of the cases we discussed today are included below, so if you would like a link or more information about a case that is not listed, please email me at rht@hawaiilawyer.com and I will send it to you.
The majority opinion by Justice Acoba, joined by Justices Nakayama and Duffy is posted here:
We hold that (1) a landowner in a condemnationaction is entitled to damages under HRS § 101-27 where the property atissue is not finally taken in the context of a particular condemnationproceeding, irrespective of whether the government attempts to take theland through subsequent condemnation proceedings; (2) abatement doesnot apply where the relief sought in two concurrent actions is not thesame; and (3) although our courts afford substantial deference to thegovernment’s asserted public purpose for a taking in a condemnationproceeding, where there is evidence that the asserted purpose ispretextual, courts should consider a landowner’s defense of pretext. Therefore, (1) automatic denial of statutory damages under HRS §101-27in Condemnation 1 is vacated and the case remanded for a determinationof damages, (2) the court’s conclusion that Condemnation 2 was notabated by Condemnation 2 is vacated and the case remanded for adetermination of whether the public purpose asserted in Condemnation 2was pretextual.
Slip op. at 5. Here’s the concurring and dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Moon joined by Justice Levinson. The briefs in the case are available here: Opening Brief, Answering Brief of the County of Hawaii, Reply Brief. Disclosure: we represent the property owner.
- When a project not being built on state or county land meets the definition of “use” of such lands triggering chapter 343 environmental review – Nuuanu Valley Ass’n v. City & County of Honolulu, No. 28599 (Oct. 24, 2008)
- Illinois Supreme Court decision about the 3% “surcharge” on casinos, which was given to horse racing tracks. Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Giannoulias, No. 104586 (June 5, 2008)
- Is destruction of evidence seized from an innocent third party a taking? AmeriSource Corp. v. United States, No. 08-497 (cert. petition filed Oct. 15, 2008)
- Development Moratorium a Taking Under Lucas – Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, No. B201280 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2008)
- No private right of action to enforce zoning – The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd.,119 Haw. 163, 194 P.3d 1126 (2008), held that a private party had nostanding to enforce the state’s land use laws. The Hawaii Supreme Courtrejected certiorari review of the case. Disclosure: we represent thelandowner. More here.
- Charles A. Pratt Constr. Co. v. California Coastal Comm’n (cert petition on Williamson County and Penn Central)
- Aspen Creek Estates, Ltd. v. Town of Brookhaven – New York Court of Appeals (comprehensive taking plan)
- City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC – Cal. Court of Appeal (details required in resolution of necessity)
- Resource Investments, Inc. v. United States– Court of Federal Claims (massive opinion and primer on regulatorytakings – erroneous exercise of jurisdiction as a temporary taking)
- Florida regulatory takings cases – Florida Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeals
- Substantive due process in the Ninth Circuit after Lingle – The Ninth Circuit Rediscovers Substantive Due Process in Land Use Cases
Head’s up on an interesting case from the Court of Federal Claims, Resource Investments, Inc. v. United States, No. 98-419L (Court of Federal Claims, Jan. 23, 2009), a massive opinion (84 single-spaced pages) with what at first glance seems to delve into just about every regulatory takings theory known: temporary takings, categorical takings, partial