Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.
In this cert petition, the property owner is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review an unpublished decision of the Ninth Circuit which rejected both Lucas and Penn Central takings claims.
Here are the Questions Presented:
1. Should this Court overrule in its entirety
Here’s a recently-published article (ALI-CLE’s The Practical Real Estate Lawyer) on a subject that we know you will want to read about: Jon Houghton, Hertha Lund, and Ben Stormes, Application of the Penn Central Test, 7 Prac. Real Estate Lawyer 7 (May 2023).
Check it out. It’s short, practical (naturally), and
A short one from the Florida District Court of Appeals (First District).
In D’Arcy v. Florida Gaming Control Comm’n, No. 1D21-3606 (May 24, 2023), the court held that the voters of Florida adopted Amendment 13 to the Florida Constitution that outlawed betting on greyhound racing (indeed betting all dog racing), it did not effect
As you can tell from the date of the opinion, we’ve been meaning to post the South Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling in Braden’s Folly, LLC v. City of Folly Beach, No. 2022-000020 (Apr. 5, 2023) for a while. Something else always intervened, but it remains a decision worth reviewing.
The city adopted an ordinance
In this Order the Indiana Supreme Court declines to take up the question of when property is taken by regulation. We post it here to note the statement of Justice Slaughter, who agreed that this case isn’t the right vehicle to examine whether Indiana law should adopt a takings test different than the federal
Thanks to lawprof Josh Blackman for the reminder that our un-favorite case, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), turned 44 today.
If you know, you know.
Time has not treated the opinion well. Practitioners, judges, and legal scholars across the spectrum have called the three-factor Penn Central test
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.
In Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, No. 21-1949 (June 16, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that temporary, but recurring government-caused flooding was correctly treated by the Court of Federal Claims as a categorical per se taking, and
Here’s a don’t miss episode of friend and colleague Clint Schumacher’s Eminent Domain Podcast, featuring our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague Jon Houghton. With a title like “Jon Houghton and his Penn Central Quest,” how can we resist listening?
In this episode, Jon Houghton with Pacific Legal Foundation joins to discuss the
If you know, you know.
Pacific Legal Foundation (that’s us) has put out a call for papers about “Rethinking Penn Central.” Here’s the details (pdf).
Here’s some of the suggested topics:
When a court’s opinion (even a trial court’s opinion) starts out with the epigram, “‘Freedom and property rights are inseparable, you cannot have one without the other.’- George Washington,” you know you are in for a ride.
So begins the opinion of the Clay County, Iowa District Court in Navigator Heartland, LLC v.