We’re hoping that someone can explain the Florida District Court of Appeal’s recent opinion in Bondar v. Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony, No. 4D19-2118 (May 5, 2021) in a way that makes sense other than the old apocryphal tale of “I don’t know why we do things this way, except that we’ve always done
New L Rev Article: Knick Won’t Mean Much Until Federal Courts Get Over “Strong Distate, If Not Outright Contempt” For Land Use Matters
R.S. Radford’s most-recent article, Knick and the Elephant in the Courtroom: Who Cares Least About Property Rights? in the latest issue of the Texas A&M Journal of Property Law, should be next on your to-read list.
Here’s the summary of the article:
Throughout the thirty-four-year history of Williamson County, one fact was taken for
New Public Use Cert Petition: Overrule Kelo!
Here’s the recently-filed cert petition in a case we’ve been following.
Rather than attempt to sum it up, we suggest you read the petition, especially the Questions Presented:
Montana Dakota Utility (hereinafter MDU), a private corporation, employed the power of eminent domain to procure an easement on Vern Behm’s farmland immediately along a pre-existing
Your Friday (And Weekend) Reading: Merrill On Compensation; Epstein On Valuation
Two very interesting law review articles (essays) by well-known property experts are now available in the Notre Dame Law Review:
- Thomas Merrill, The Compensation Constraint and the Scope of the Takings Clause, 96 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1421 (2021). Professor Merrill asks “whether the established methods for determining just compensation can shed light
SCOTUS Amici: Preventing Future Blight Is Not Public Use
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
Texas’ Takings Statute Allows Claims For Both Physical And Regulatory Takings
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
Must Read: “Necessity Exceptions to Takings” (Shelley Ross Saxer)
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
Farewell, Toby Brigham (1934-2021)
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
N. Dakota: We Understand The Right To Exclude – Non-Permanent Precondemnation Entries Went Too Far
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
Cal App: Taking Verdict Affirmed – When City Asserts That Its No-Development Law “trumps whatever you might submit,” It Would Have Been Futile For Property Owner To Submit Development Application
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