You remember that old adage (or maybe its a cliché?) that “a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged?” Well, here’s your environmentalist analog.
In Echeverria v. Town of Tubridge, No. 23-AP-291 (Aug. 2, 2024), the Vermont Supreme Court held that property owners’ lawsuit asserting their right to prohibit the town
Come join us in Williamsburg, Virginia at the William and Mary Law School for the 21st edition of the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference. The Conference is unique, because its express purpose is to bring property legal scholars and property law practitioners together to discuss, what else, property and property rights law.
Yes, there’s a
This one is a must-read.
In Darby Dev. Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 22-1929 (Aug. 7, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Court of Federal Claims should not have dismissed Darby’s complaint for failure to state a physical invasion takings claim.
The short takeaways:
Check this out, the latest takings cert petition from the Pacific Legal Foundation shop.
Since this is one of ours (our colleague Chris Kieser is in the lead), we’re not going into too much detail, but will say that this involves ripeness in a regulatory takings claims, a topic we’ve been focused on a
Check out City of Kemah v. Crow, No. 01-23-00417-CV (July 25, 2024), from the Texas Court of Appeal (First District).
This is yet another takings ripeness case — here, the so-called “final decision” requirement — the second recent opinion on this issue from the Texas court. See “Final Decision Takings Ripeness Is Based
We suggest those of you interested in takings ripeness — here, the so-called “final decision” requirement — take a quick gander at the Texas Court of Appeals’ opinion in City of Buda v. N.M. Edificios, LLC, No. 07-23-00427-CV (July 2, 2024).
We won’t go into the details, except to say that a property
A fairly short one from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, but well worth your time to read.
Mata v. N.C. Dep’t of Transportation, No. COA23-1140-1 (July 16, 2024) is the latest in the “Map Act” takings cases that we have long covered. There, N.C. legislature adopted a statute that identified future highway corridors
Check out this decision, entered by a Rhode Island Superior Court (a general jurisdiction trial court) denying the State’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that a recently-adopted statute shifting the boundary between public and private property on RI’s beaches is a taking.
We won’t be commenting in too much detail because this
Check this out: our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues (Brian Hodges and Deborah La Fetra we on our Sheetz SCOTUS team), have posted a new scholarly piece on SSRN, “Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: Legislatures Must Comply with the Takings Clause.”
Here’s the Abstract:
For more than 30 years, the Supreme Court
Check out this decision, entered by a Rhode Island Superior Court (a general jurisdiction trial court) denying the State’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that a recently-adopted statute shifting the boundary between public and private property on RI’s beaches is a taking.
We won’t be commenting in too much detail because this