Check it out: our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues Jim Burling, Jon Houghton, and Jeff McCoy, along with Jeremy Hopkins (Cranfill & Sumner, North Carolina), share with us the latest on property rights, Sackett, takings, the future of Penn Central, and the upcoming SCOTUS arguments in Wilkins v. United States (is
County: We’re Short Of Housing, So Let’s Do Rent Control! Court: Not So Fast.
Florida law makes it really difficult for municipalities to adopt rent controls. State statutes and the Florida Constitution erect all sorts of substantive and procedural hurdles that must be crossed. For example, a statute requires findings that any such measures are responding to an emergency, a “grave … menace to the general public,” and places
Whether $23K Traffic Fee Is Proportional To One Single-Family Home Is Beyond The Ken Of Judges
The County of El Dorado requires everyone seeking a building permit for new development to pay a fee to mitigate the additional traffic that the proposed development is predicted to cause. But the County doesn’t calculate the fee by actually looking at a proposed development and predicting what traffic impacts in may be responsible for.
New Cert Petition: Just Compensation Claims Can Be “Adjusted” (Eliminated Or Reduced) In Bankruptcy, Right?
Remember that First Circuit opinion from a few months back, which held – contrary to a prior 2-1 Ninth Circuit panel – that just compensation claims are not dischargeable in a governmental bankruptcy?
Well, the government recently filed a cert petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case and hold that there’s nothing
CAFED Hears Arguments In Two Takings Cases
Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, No. 21-1849
As written up in the FedCircuitBlog (a must-follow for all you federal takings mavens):
It concerns the federal government’s liability for taking private property. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review the conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was
More On Federal Court Invalidating Honolulu’s 3-Month Minimum Rental Term
Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court invalidated Honolulu’s stretching of the minimum term for a residential rental from 30 days to three months, concluding that the ordinance likely violates the state Zoning Enabling Act, and also would be a taking if implemented. The court issued a preliminary injunction.
The lawyers repping the plaintiffs in
CA9 Takings Ripeness Oral Arguments: Must Property Owners Secure Govt’s Agreement That Property Is Subject To Challenged Regulations Before A Court Can Review?
October 20, 2022 was what one advocate noted was “land use day at the Ninth Circuit,” because three out of the four cases being argued in Courtroom 3 of the San Francisco courthouse were indeed land use — or perhaps more accurately, regulatory takings — cases.
Ours was one of those cases, Ralston v. San
Oh, Canada! SCOCAN: Constructive Appropriation (Regulatory Takings) Claim Need Not Be Based On Land Acquisition; Taking Of Beneficial Interest Suffices
Here’s one we’ve been waiting to drop, in a case we’ve been following.
Today, in Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality, No. 39594 (Oct. 21, 2022), the Supreme Court of Canada held (and we’re translating into United States here), that to state a claim for a regulatory taking based on the government’s
Shades Of Mahon From North Dakota: Fracking Statute “constitutes a per se taking”
Been meaning to post this one for a while.
The plaintiff in Northwest Landowners Ass’n v. North Dakota, No. 20210148 (Aug. 4, 2022), challenged North Dakota’s adoption of a statute about “pore space,” which is “a cavity or void, whether natural or artificially created, in a subsurface sedimentary stratum.” Whoa.
The problematic
CA6: Home Equity Is Property Even If State Law Says Otherwise: Govt Can’t Foreclose To Satisfy A Tax Debt, Then Keep The Change
We won’t be providing our detailed thoughts on last week’s U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Hall v. Meisner, No. 21-1700 (Oct. 13, 2022), because we’re obviously biased: our law firm colleagues Christina Martin and Kady Valois represent the prevailing property owners, so we naturally agree with the court. Thus