Two very interesting law review articles (essays) by well-known property experts are now available in the Notre Dame Law Review:
Here are the amici briefs supporting the property owner’s cert petition in a case we’ve been following for a long time, Eychaner v. City of Chicago, No. 20-1214.
This is the one in which the Illinois courts concluded that Chicago’s desire to prevent “future blight” is enough of a public use to support
Here’s one we’ve been waiting to drop. In San Jacinto River Authority v. Medina, Nos. 19-0400, 19-0402 (Apr. 16, 2021), the Texas Supreme Court held that “statutory takings” under the Texas Government Code include both physical invasion takings as well as regulatory takings.
This case stems from flooding allegedly caused in part by the
Takings! Armstrong! Emergencies! Mahon! Jacobson!
Add lawprof Shelley Ross Saxer’s latest article (forthcoming in the University of Hawaii Law Review), “Necessity Exceptions to Takings” to your reading list.
Rather than summarize it for you, we’ll just post the abstract:
The doctrine of necessity has strong roots in
Toby Prince Brigham
November 24, 1934 – March 19, 2021
We haven’t posted in a few days, because we’ve been busy with a sad but important task – traveling to Miami to pay our respects to a true giant in the field of property rights and eminent domain, Toby Prince Brigham.
After a long and
Check out the North Dakota Supreme Court’s opinion in Cass County Joint Water Resource District v. Aaland, No. 20200171 (Mar. 24, 2021). It’s a quick read, and worth your time.
North Dakota has one of those “precondemnation entry” statutes allowing a (potential) condemnor to enter private property to check it out to see if
We suggest you take a read through the California Court of Appeal’s opinion in Felkay v. City of Santa Barbara, No. B304964 (Mar. 18, 2021). It’s all there: Lucas wipeout takings, futility and exhaustion, coastal zone property rights.
This is an inverse condemnation case, seeing compensation for the city denying the owner any economically
You listened live. Or you missed that, and listened to the recording. Or, you preferred to review what others thought of the arguments. Now you can read it yourself.
Here’s the transcript of Monday’s oral arguments in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, No. 20-107, the case in which the Supreme Court
In which we join the Pendulum Land Podcast (again, thank you hosts!) to talk about the Virginia Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Johnson v. City of Suffolk, the case we label the “oyster takings” case in which Hampton Roads oystermen claimed that their property was taken when the City of Suffolk and the Sanitation
Here are links to the summaries and analysis of yesterday’s oral arguments in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, No. 20-107, the case asking whether California’s forbidding of agricultural property owners from keeping out union organizers is a taking:
Neutral
