Over there is where the “little pink house” was.
July 26, 2025.
Regular readers know that from time to time, we make what we call property or takings pilgrimages to the sites of famous cases. Inter alia: Kaiser Aetna, Nollan, Dolan, Loretto, Penn Central, Hadacheck, the High Line
Readers of this blog are surely familiar with the soft spot we have in our heart for the Australian film, “The Castle.”
We described it as “Kelo Down Under,” noting that despite its comic spin, the film accurately portrays why owners of property object to eminent domain (in Australia, “compulsory
The latest episode of the “Is That Even Legal?” podcast features a familiar voice, that of former Eminent Domain Podcast host, Clint Schumacher who joins host Bob Sewell as a guest to discuss takings by eminent domain, and by overregulation.
Clint joins the ITEL Podcast to discuss a situation that has been in
Be sure to check out the latest scholarship from lawprof Molly Brady, which sheds new light on the public use question in eminent domain, “Debates Over ‘Public Use’ in the State Constitutional Conventions,” forthcoming from the Yale Journal of Regulation.
Here’s the Abstract:
Historians and legal scholars alike have previously noted that the
It hardly seems like two decades have passed. After all, it was a mere 10 years ago we were lamenting “Kelo At 10: Still Stinks, And A Decade Has Not Lessened The Odor.”
But yes, it was twenty years ago today … the U.S. Supreme Court, by the thinnest of margins, held in
It seems very appropriate that we’re posting the Texas Court of Appeals’ decision in Burgess v. City of Wentworth Village, No. 02-24-00252 (June 19, 2025) today, the twentieth anniversary of Kelo v. New London.
Because on the Kelo-versary, we start as the Burgess opinion did: an epigram wherein the court quoted a
Check out the latest episode of the Lunch Hour Podcast, featuring lawprof Donald Kochan, “Property Rights, Regulation, and the Rule of Law.”
Here’s the description:
In this episode of The Lunch Hour with Federal Newswire, host Andrew Langer sits down with Professor Donald Kochan of the Antonin Scalia Law School at
Check out this recently-published student note: Cameron P. Hellerman, Misusing Eminent Domain: Pretextual Takings For A Traditional Public Use, 93 Fordham L. Rev. 2229 (2025).
The article considers the Second Circuit’s decision in Brinkmann v. Town of Southhold, about what we call “spite takings” — those in which the government’s stated public purpose
In Muskingum County Convention Facilities Auth. v. Barnes Advertising Corp., No. CT2024-0134 (May 22, 2025), the Ohio Court of Appeal upheld the Authority’s taking of two billboard easements where the stated purpose was for a “new facility serving the City of Zanesville and Muskingum County community[.]” Slip op. at 3.
OK, but what
One of the frustrations of challenging the power to take is … let’s say you win. Yay! You’ve stopped the taking!
So now what? Go back to your life safe in the belief that your property rights are secure? Maybe. If the government has had enough and says “no mas,” your win may
