I recently picked up a copy of Property Rights – Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings Re-Examined (Bruce L. Benson, ed., Independent Institute 2010), available on-line here.
At 299 pages and with 13 entries, I haven’t had a chance to read the whole thing yet. But after an initial skim, a few of the chapters
We have no idea what these cases might be about, or whether there is any substance behind the property owners’ objections, but these are headlines no condemnor could possibly like:
Two unreported opinions arising out of cases from New Jersey. We won’t be reviewing them (they are not precedential after all), but you may want to check them out if you are interested in public use and redevelopment (case #1), or inverse condemnation by permit denial (case #2):
Here are items we’re reading today, in no particular order:
Here’s the latest development in the ongoing life imitating art saga of the the use of eminent domain to take property in St. Johannes Cemetery for the expansion of O’Hare airport.
Appellate court hears arguments in O’Hare cemetery case is a short news report about last week’s oral argument in the appeal by the
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court plurality opinion in the long-anticipated Second Amendment case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521
In the late 19th century, the Court began to consider whether the Due Process Clause prohibits the States from infringing rights set out in the Bill of Rights. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516
Here’s a round-up of reports and analysis of yesterday’s opinion by the New York Court of Appeals in the “Columbia U. blight” case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125:
More on today’s opinion in the “Columbia U. blight” case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125.
As we noted in our critique of the Atlantic Yards case (Goldstein), New York judges apparently are too “frightened and confused” by allegations that property is not truly “substandard or unsanitary,” so
The New York Court of Appeals today reversed the Columbia “blight” case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125 (June 24, 2010). The unanimous opinion came swiftly (oral arguments were just under a month ago), suggesting it was not a close call for the court. Here’s the Appellate Division’s opinion
The WMA Reporter, the monthly publication of the Western Manufactured Communities Housing Association has published A Regulatory Takings Glossary (or, How to Translate Property Rights Lawyerspeak), my short article that attempts to deconstruct some of the more common terms property lawyers toss about. Here’s the Introduction:
One of my law school professors once