Here’s the property owners’ Brief on the Merits in the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the nature of physical invasion takings, and how permanent a permanent intrusion must be in order to qualify for Loretto and Kaiser Aetna-ish per se treatment.
In Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma, 923 F.3d
Here’s a big development in a case we’ve been following for a while (and in which we filed an amicus brief in support of the prevailing property owner).
In DW Aina Lea Dev., LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm’n, No. SCCQ-19-156 (Dec. 17, 2020), the unanimous Hawaii Supreme Court held that the
Charlie Brown got a bag of rocks for Halloween.
But you aren’t so cruel, and want to give better gifts this holiday season to the dirt lawyer in your life, no? Here are our 2020 suggestions for stocking stuffers that will make property mavens celebrate the season.
Start with this one, Professor Bart Wilson’s
Before it condemned a parcel of land in Bastrop County, the State of Texas made a bona fide offer to purchase to the owners of the fee as mandated by Texas law, which requires that a condemnor make an offer to the “property owner,” and provide a statement “to the landowner[.]”
But in In re
Earlier this week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in its latest takings case.
Wait, what? Did we miss something? A takings case, argued this week?
No, you didn’t miss a land use or eminent domain case, but one in which Holocaust victims sued Germany in a U.S. court for seizure of property
Often, the dispositive question in many takings cases tuns on whether the plaintiff owns “property,” and if so, what rights does that recognize. If you define the property in such a way that ipse dixit excludes the “stick” the owner claims was taken, then the answer is always going to be no property, no taking.
You know what SCOTUS nerds want for Christmas? These words, in a federal court of appeals opinion:
We are aware that our decision conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s recent holding in Sierra Club v. Trump. That case involved a parallel challenge to the Government’s use of § 2808 funds to build the border wall.
We’ve been there before, but even so, this video is worth your time. It tells the story of Seneca Village, located within the borders of what now is Central Park.
There are eminent domain and property rights stories everywhere you look.
Each spring, we do a smaller course at the William and Mary Law School (known as a “Directed Reading”) that focuses on some interesting property issue. The class reads a book and uses it as a springboard for discussion.
No exam, no paper, just an exploration of the issues as a way about thinking about
Go on, read the facts in the California Court of Appeal’s (unpublished) opinion in San Joaquin Regional Transit District v. Superior Court, No. C084755 (Dec. 1, 2020). It’s worth your time, believe us.
After chasing from California a long-standing manufacturing and service business (to Illinois) by instituting condemnation proceedings on the property on which