A long opinion, but a short post. In Stanford Vina Ranch Irrigation Co. v. California, No. C085762 (June 18, 2020), the California Court of Appeal held that water rights are not really property rights.
That’s a bit of an overstatement, of course. But not a huge one.
In an inverse condemnation case, the court
A new, must-add-to-your-reading-list article from takings and expropriations law scholar Professor Shai Stern.
In “Pandemic Takings: Compensating for Public Health Emergency Regulation,” Professor Stern dives into a question a lot of us have been pondering lately, namely whether the pandemic-related shutdown orders might trigger the Just Compensation imperative in the Fifth Amendment’s
One more to add to your reading queue. The latest complaint alleges, among other claims, that the Illinois governor’s coronavirus shut down orders for businesses deemed “non-essential” result in takings.
The list of similar challenges keeps growing. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,
Here’s the latest lawsuit challenging a government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. This one challenges the California Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 1, which indefinitely closed the courthouse doors to eviction proceedings (what California calls “unlawful detainer”).
This one does not employ a takings rationale, but takes a separation-of-powers approach. It’s concisely drafted, so we
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following (we visited the site last November with our William and Mary class), the property owners’ Opening Brief in a case being considered by the Virginia Supreme Court.
This is a case at the intersection of property and takings law, and environmental protection. Several Nansemond River oystermen
Next Wednesday, June 17, 2020, at 5:30pm Hawaii Time, we’ll be speaking for the King Kamehameha V Judiciary History Center about “Constitutional Law and States of Emergency: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic.”
This is a one-hour program, open to the public, where we will take a dive into Hawaii’s emergency preparedness and
Here’s the latest court order telling business and property owners that they have little chance of success on the claims asserted in various mostly-constitutional challenges to shut-down orders.
This time the businesses are in North Carolina, and appear to be — ahem — so-called “gentlemen’s clubs” (and by that, we’re not referencing those in St.
On one hand, the Colorado Supreme Court’s opinion in Forest View Co. v. Town of Monument, No.18SC793 (June 8, 2020), concluding that a restrictive covenant is not a property interest that the government needs to pay for conflicts with the decisions on similar facts from other jurisdictions (Kansas, for example). On the
Short answer: yes, with a caveat. For why there’s an asterisk on this one, take a look at the Supreme Court’s electronic docket for PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v. New Jersey, No. 19-1039 (cert. petition Feb. 20, 2020) (a case we’ve been following), and tell me whether you think there’s anything unusual about
Here’s the city’s Brief in Opposition in a case we’ve been following (so closely, in fact, that we filed an amicus brief in support of the property owner – see “Amicus Brief: Invocation Of “Police Power” Is Not Dispositive In Takings“). A case in which the issues have taken on new and heightened