This is the second in a series of five posts taking a look at last week’s landmark ruling by a sharply-divided Supreme Court, Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (June 21, 2019). Here are the related posts:
Knick Analysis, Part III: What It Means To “Take” Property Without Just Compensation – “A bank robber might give the loot back, but he still robbed the bank.”
This is the third in a series of five posts taking a look at last week’s landmark ruling by a sharply-divided Supreme Court, Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (June 21, 2019). Here are the related posts:
Knick Analysis, Part IV: Why Not Let Sleeping Dogs Lie? The Dissent And Stare Decisis
This is the fourth in our series of five posts with thoughts on the landmark decision in Knick. In this installment, the dissent. Related posts:
- Part I: After More Than 30 Years, Supreme Court Reopens The Federal Courthouse Door To Property Owners
- Part II: The Court Finds A Vehicle In A Zombie-Zoning Case
- Part III:
Knick Analysis, Part V: What’s Next?
This is the fifth and last in our series of posts with thoughts on the landmark decision in Knick. In this post, we’ll be puling out our crystal balls, and doing a bit of forecasting. Here are the related posts:
Knick Round-Up
A lot is being written about Friday’s Supreme Court opinions in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (U.S. June 21, 2019) (including us). Here’s a sampling.
- In Private Cemetery Case, Supreme Court at Last Buries Rule Denying Property Owners Their Day in Federal Court (Ilya Shapiro, Cato).
- In Property Rights Case,
Williamson County Overruled: After Nearly A Century, Supreme Court Finally Has Figured Out What A Regulatory Takings Claim Looks Like
We’ll be doing a longer post with our thoughts on the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (June 21, 2019). But here’s the big picture.
It appears that at least five Justices finally seem to understand what we in the property bar have been saying for decades
“The state-litigation requirement of Williamson County is overruled.”
Property lawyers, dust off your Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and federal judges your long vacay from dealing with regulatory takings and inverse condemnation cases is over, because this just in: by a 5-4 margin (Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, with Justice Kagan writing the dissent), the U.S. Supreme Court today finally (finally!)
Thursday Round Up: Hawaii Water Law, “New” Property, The Edge Denied!
Here’s what we’re reading today:
- New Ruling In Maui Water Case Still Doesn’t Resolve Old Dispute (Honolulu Civil Beat) – about the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ recent unpublished memorandum opinion in a long-ongoing water law fight on Maui. The long and the short of it is the court held that whether a short-term license
NY Court of Appeals Considering Whether A Pipeline Can Take Property For A Project That Can’t Legally Be Built
Here’s a case that’s pending in the New York Court of Appeals that has been briefed and is awaiting argument.
In Natural Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. Schueckler, No. 17-02021 (Nov. 9, 2018), the Appellate Division answered this question:
This appeal therefore presents a novel question of condemnation law: can a corporation involuntarily expropriate
Public University’s Rip-Off Of Photograph Is Copyright Infringement, Not A Taking
The recent opinion of the Texas Court of Appeals (First District) in University of Houston v. Jim Olive Photography, No. 01-18-00534 (June 11, 2019) addressed a fascinating (and still unsolved) question: does intellectual property qualify as “property” for purposes of the takings clause?
The court held “no,” but that answer isn’t definitive.
The facts