We’ve been eagerly waiting for the new season of the Institute for Justice’s podcast series, “Bound by Oath” to drop. Not only because it’s a great series – produced by John Ross, it is more like an audio documentary than a typical podcast – but also because John was kind enough to ask
Professor Kanner’s Final Article: “Eminent Domain Projects That Didn’t Work Out,” 12 Brigham-Kanner Prop. Rts. J. 171 (2023)
Here it is — Professor Gideon Kanner’s final law journal article, published shortly before his passing:
Gideon Kanner, Eminent Domain Projects That Didn’t Work Out, 12 Brigham-Kanner Prop. Rts. J. 171 (2023).
Appropriately, we think, published in William and Mary Law School’s Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Journal, named in part in Gideon’s honor.
Join Us For 100 Years Of Pennsylvania Coal (Pace Land Use Conference, Dec. 8, 2023)
22nd annual Alfred B. DelBello Land Use
and Sustainable Development Conference
Come, join us (and others) on Thursday-Friday, December 7-8, 2023, at Pace Law School in White Plains, New York for the Land Use and Sustainable Development Conference (this year’s conference theme is “Balancing Economic Realities with Environmental and Social Concerns”).
We’re speaking about the
Harvard Law Review On Tyler v. Hennepin County: Reflecting The “Diminishing” Role Of State Property Law In Takings
Check this one out, the Harvard Law Review‘s summary of Tyler v. Hennepin County, the “home equity theft” takings case decided unanimously by the Supreme Court.
Some highlights:
Beginning with traditional principles, Chief Justice Roberts suggested that a property interest in surplus equity had English origins — King John proclaimed in the Magna
(Un)Happy 97th Birthday, Euclid!
On this day in 1926, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (Nov. 22, 1926).
You know this one (shame on you if you don’t!) – it is the case in which the Supreme Court first upheld — against
New Podcast: The Cedar Point Takings Case (From The Guy Who Argued Cedar Point)
Check this out, our law firm colleague Joshua Thompson talks about regulatory takings, and his big Supreme Court victory in Cedar Point Nursery.
If you are reading this blog, you already know what that means. Regulatory takings. Bundle of sticks. Penn Central (bleh), and right to exclude. Here’s the description of the program:
In
Legislative Exactions Merits Brief (Ours): “the text and history of the Takings Clause admit no exception for legislative takings”
Here’s the merits brief in a case we’ve been following (naturally, because it is one of ours). This is Sheetz v. El Dorado County, the case which asks whether a condition on development (aka an “exaction”) is exempt from the close nexus and rough proportionality standards of Nollan/Dolan/Koontz simply because the exaction is imposed
Here’s The Program For The 41st ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-3, 2024, New Orleans
Here’s the brochure and the full agenda and registration information for the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference at the JW Marriott in New Orleans, February 1-3, 2024.
This is the long-running nationally-focused conference on all things eminent domain, takings, valuation, and related. We have three tracks, from which you can
We Want A Lump Of Coal For Christmas (As Long As It Is Pennsylvania [Anthracite] Coal)
Our thanks to Professor/Dean/Provost Patricia Salkin and Lawprof Simone Freeman for inviting me to drop in on their Touro Law School Land Use class last evening to talk about regulatory takings and some of the interesting details of the Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon case from 1922.
We discussed the case, using some photos we
CA9: No Physical Commandeering In Eviction Moratorium Because Yee Says “You Let The Tenants In, So You Can’t Complain About Keeping Them (For Free)”
A short one from the Ninth Circuit on a topic that we keep revisiting, whether the various eviction moratoria adopted and enforced by the feds and many states and local governments during Co-19.
We keep revisiting the topic because the courts keep getting it wrong.
And before we go on, a disclosure: this is