Regular readers know that in addition to our focus on Fifth Amendment property rights, we’re also looking at the Fourth Amendment as a vehicle that protects and promotes property rights.
In that vein, here’s a forthcoming article that is worth reading,”The Benefits of the Fourth Amendment’s Property-Rights Baseline,” by lawprof Nicholas Alden Kahn-Fogel.
We don’t see any free public education here.
Some old-school property “sticks” analysis from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Zeven v. Jones, No. 23-35438 (Aug. 23, 2024), worth checking out.
The Idaho Constitution has a “free common schools” clause:
The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly
As we hinted at a couple of weeks ago, we have some good — nay, great — news: the Eminent Domain Podcast, retired earlier this year by its originator Clint Schumacher, is back with a new host and a slightly new title: “Come and Take It: The Eminent Domain Podcast.”
This would not be authorized.
Here’s the latest in an issue that found new vitality after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cedar Point affirming that government-authorized physical entry to private property is presumptively a taking.
This is the “precondemnation entry” issue in eminent domain which several courts have addressed:
Here’s the latest takings cert petition. This one seeks review of the Seventh Circuit’s affirming the district court’s sua sponte abstaining from considering a property owner’s challenge to a Wisconsin municipality’s exercise of eminent domain.
The court concluded that federal courts could — but shouldn’t — consider the owner’s public use challenge
It is worth your time to check out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Middle District)’s decision in Wolfe v. Reading Blue Mountain & Northern RR Co. No. J-10A-2024 (Aug. 20, 2024).
The court invalidated an exercise of eminent domain by a railroad, concluding the taking was not for a public purpose because it was intended
Yes, the mysterious ducks remain — and seem to have multiplied.
It’s that time of the year again. Fall’s-a-coming, and that means that starting today, we’re back at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia to lead two courses:
Be sure to read the entirety of Lawprof Ilya Somin’s recent post on Volokh, “Federal Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Takings Lawsuit Against the CDC’s Covid-Era Eviction Moratorium.”
There, he analyzes the Federal Circuit’s recent 2-1 opinion in Darby Dev. Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 22-1929 (Aug. 7, 2024) (we
Come join us in Williamsburg, Virginia at the William and Mary Law School for the 21st edition of the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference. The Conference is unique, because its express purpose is to bring property legal scholars and property law practitioners together to discuss, what else, property and property rights law.
Yes, there’s a
This one is a must-read.
In Darby Dev. Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 22-1929 (Aug. 7, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Court of Federal Claims should not have dismissed Darby’s complaint for failure to state a physical invasion takings claim.
The short takeaways: