A short one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that we’ve been meaning to post for a while.
In reVamped LLC v. City of Pipestone, No. 25-1076 (Dec. 23, 2025), the court concluded that the city’s issuance of a closure order to reVamped after the business ended up on the
In Lifetime Communities, Ltd. v. City of Worthington, No. 25-3048 (Jan. 27, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the city’s refusal to upzone a vacant parcel from “S-1” (which permits only parks, hospitals, churches, and other similar institutional uses) to a designation that would allow mixed-use development, was not a Penn Central taking.
Continue Reading CA6: Denial Of Rezoning Is Not A Penn Central Taking
Check this out, a new complaint, filed this week in a federal court in California.
[We won’t be offering all that much comment on this because it is one of ours.]
This a takings challenge to a California statute which establishes a purported 3,200-foot safety zone around “sensitive receptors” that “prohibits the drilling of new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet
of “sensitive receptors,” which includes most places where the public works, lives, and plays.” Complaint at 1.
Continue Reading There Will Be Takings: New Complaint Challenging California’s “Sensitive Receptor” Setback Statute
If you are still looking for a reason to head to the 808 next month, here it is. The 2026 Future of Property Law Conference, February 13, 2026 at the University of Hawaii School of Law.
Continue Reading 2026 Future of Property Law Conference, University of Hawaii Law School, Feb 13, 2026 (Live & Webcast)
The view from the podium
That’s right. More than 300 of the nation’s best eminent domain lawyers, judges, appraisers, right-of-way agents, scholars, and other industry professionals are in Savannah for the next two and a half days for what is now known as the American Law Institute (“ALI” alone, no longer with the “-CLE” addition)
We’re deep in the throes of winter, and spring training won’t start for another month, but for those of you who are fans of the National Pastime — particularly if you are like us and a child of 1970’s baseball — then be sure to check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s recent opinion in Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia, No. 23-1922 (Jan. 16, 2026).
Continue Reading CA1: Government’s Use Of Roberto Clemente Trademark Isn’t A Categorical Physical Invasion Taking
A reminder: there’s still time to join us for the upcoming American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference in Savannah.
Now in its 43rd year, this flagship gathering remains the undisputed national hub for practitioners, academics, appraisers, and anyone else who lives and breathes property and eminent domain law. We will
This one is worth your time to review.
In HRT Enterprises v. City of Detroit, No. 23-1847 (Dec. 22, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff/owner and a jury verdict on just compensation.
The case is notable not
Sometimes when you read a court opinion you imagine there’s a big gap between the objective, sterile words on the page and the reality of the situation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in O’Donnell v. City of Chicago, No. 24-2946 (Dec. 22, 2025) is one of those.
The words
In Gould v. Interface, Inc., No. 23-12883 (Oct. 2, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was dealing with a claim for wrongful termination of a tech CEO.
So what’s the case doing here? Skip forward to page 12 of the slip opinion, where the court deals with an oft-occurring argument: