We’re not going to ask you to read the entire 24 pages of the Washington Supreme Court’s 5-4 opinion in Gonzales v. Inslee, No. 1000992-5 (Sep. 28, 2023), in which the court seriatim rejects every challenge to the Governor’s Co-19 emergency eviction moratorium for tenants, which allowed tenants who did not pay rent to
ALI-CLE’s Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Feb 1-3, 2024, New Orleans): Why Attend? Here’s Why.
Why is it, you ask, that the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (scheduled next February 1-3, 2024, in New Orleans) is an event that seems to be growing in popularity and attendance. In recent years, we have standing room only in the Conference halls, and have sold out the hotel block.
DC Circuit: US Copyright Office’s Requirement To Turn Over Copies Is A Taking
The buried lede in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Valancourt Books, LLC v. Garland, No. 21-5205 (Aug. 29, 2023) is that the government doesn’t have that big of a role in copyrights, at least in the bare minimum of copyright protections.
We’re no copyright experts (that’s an understatement)
Washington: “The right to inverse condemnation belongs to the property owner at the time of the taking; the right does not pass to a subsequent purchaser unless expressly conveyed.”
In Masloka v. Public Utility District No. 1, No. 101241-1 (Aug. 3, 2023), the Washington Supreme Court held that a takings claim did not automatically transfer to a new property owner when the property was sold.
Your first reaction might be like ours, “what about Palazzolo!?” Didn’t that case say that transfer of
CAFED: Just Because The Govt Seized Property As Evidence Doesn’t Mean It Can Keep It Without Compensation
Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been following.
Let’s say the government thinks you have committed a crime (or someone else has). To investigate, it seizes property as evidence or potential evidence. But after things wrap up and it no longer needs the property as evidence, the government doesn’t return it to its owner.
Twister: Can You Get There From Here At “Corner Crossing” Properties?
Your mission: go from blue squares to blue squares
without touching any of the red squares
Check out this Order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming in a case that presents a very interesting — some might say metaphysical — property issue; an issue we were not really aware of until
Iowa Trial Court: Pipeline Precondemnation Entry Statute Is Facially Unconstitutional
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.
New Cert Petition: Forcing Owners To Rent To Tenants Indefinitely Is A Categorical Taking
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following since its inception, this cert petition seeking Supreme Court review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s affirming the district court’s dismissal of a complaint alleging that New York (state)’s sweeping amendments to its Rent Stabilization (rent control) statute effected categorical and
New L Rev Article: “Property and the Right to Enter” (Bethany Berger)
Here’s an article for your Monday reading, Bethany R. Berger, Property and the Right to Enter, 80 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 71 (2023).
Here’s the abstract:
On June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, holding that laws that authorize entry to land are takings without regard to
Links And Materials From The 22d Annual Texas Eminent Domain Conference
Good crowd.
Here are the cases and other materials we spoke about on Friday at the 22d Annual Texas Eminent Domain Conference, in Austin. A big thank you to the Planning Chairs and to our friends at CLE International for the speaking invite.
- Sackett v. EPA (SCOTUS and WOTUS)
- Wilkins v. United States (Federal