Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Williams, No. 21-1731 (Apr. 3, 2023), where the court reinstated a complaint dismissed by the district court for lack of standing.
The Eighth Circuit held that even though the “usual” remedy for a regulatory
Doc Brown … err Bill Blackstone approves
Today’s case, State of Idaho v. Dorff, No. 48119 (Mar. 20, 2023) involves the Fourth Amendment, not the Fifth.
But ever since the U.S. Supreme Court returned to a property-based view of the Search and Seizure clause of the Fourth, property rights mavens’ ears perk up any
This just in: the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued this Opinion & Order in the case which challenges New York City’s rendering “guaranty clauses” in commercial leases unenforceable due to the declared Co-19 emergency.
This is a case we’ve been following. Earlier, the Second Circuit vacated the district
We all know by now that the Supreme Court recently has been on a tear about federal statutes of limitations, and is policing up a lot of earlier too-casual language in some of its opinions about whether this SOL or that SOL is “jurisdictional.” In a series of opinions over the last few years, the Court has almost universally confirmed that it used the term rather loosely, and that upon further review, many statutes of limitations are not “jurisdictional” but are “claims processing rules.”
The Court’s 6-3 opinion in Wilkins v. United States, No. 21-1164 (Mar. 28, 2023) is another in a line of decisions so holding. Wilkins involves the Federal Quiet Title Act’s 12-year SOL (see this preview of the issues by our friend and colleague Stephen Davis). The bottom line is that Wilkins concluded the QTA’s SOL is a claims processing rule because Congress did not “clearly state” that the SOL is jurisdictional.
We’ll leave it to you to read the six-Justice majority opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, and the three-Justice dissent authored by Justice Thomas, because this case is one where our law firm represents a party, the prevailing petitioners. Our colleague Jeffrey McCoy argued the case a couple of months ago (nice job, Jeff!).
Unfortunately, a lot of the reporting on the decision treat it as a wonky, technical issue (which, admittedly, it is), but in so doing regrettably overlook the importance of the case. For the reasons why we think it is very important, read this. And for some of the reporting that gets why the case is important (and which note the somewhat unexpected line up of Justices) see:
The bottom line is that the property owners will get their day in court, and not get tossed out for an arcane, overly-technical reason. And that sounds like a very good thing.
Check this out, a recently-filed cert petition in a case we’ve been following, filed by our friends and colleagues at the Institute for Justice. This one involves an issue we’ve been on top of also, most recently in these two cases (see here and here).
That is, what does the Supreme Court’s description
If a zoning statute or ordinance sets out the uses permitted in a zone, and the uses not permitted in the zone, and a property owner wants to make a use not permitted in the zone, all she needs to do is apply for a variance, or a Conditional Use Permit, or a nonconforming use
Let’s say you know nothing else about an appeal except it is being decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the case is a constitutional challenge to rent control. What’s your best guess about the outcome (the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim)?
When the Second Circuit
Remember that case from a couple of years back, where the Supreme Court, by a tantalizingly close vote, declined to grant a cert petition seeking review of an Illinois decision that preventing future blight was a sufficiently public use to support a redevelopment taking?
A law student at Catholic U. law school recently made a
Here’s the merits brief, filed yesterday in the above-depicted Court by our law firm colleagues, headed by Counsel of Record Christina Martin in Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, a case and an issue we’ve been following closely. This is the one, where, as recounted in the petition:
Hennepin County
The Chief Justice Wants YOU to attend this webinar.
We try to remember anniversaries and birthdays. Some welcome, like the recent 100th of Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon. Some maybe not so welcome, like this, the 200th anniversary of Johnson and Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 543 (Feb. 28, 1823).
That’s