In this Order the Indiana Supreme Court declines to take up the question of when property is taken by regulation. We post it here to note the statement of Justice Slaughter, who agreed that this case isn’t the right vehicle to examine whether Indiana law should adopt a takings test different than the federal
Regulatory takings
Nectow Is Meaningless Because It “relies on pre-Lochner administrative review jurisprudence”
One from the Louisiana Court of Appeal, 3000-3022 St. Claude Avenue, LLC v. City of New Orleans, No. 2022-CA-0813 (June 22, 2023) demonstrating that the standard of judicial review for zoning matters (rational basis) is pretty powerful.
The owner wanted to develop its New Orleans property, but first needed a zoning amendment from residential…
CA6: We Haven’t Already Said Individual Govt Officials Can Be Liable For Takings, So They’re Immune
In Sterling Hotels,LLC v. McKay, No. 22-1345 (June 22, 2023) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered whether a hotel could sue a state elevator inspector who barred the hotel from operating its elevators for reasons the state’s Elevator Safety Board had not approved. As a result, the hotel couldn’t rent…
Sad Birthday Wishes To Penn Central – Some Things Don’t Get Better With Age
Thanks to lawprof Josh Blackman for the reminder that our un-favorite case, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), turned 44 today.
Time has not treated the opinion well. Practitioners, judges, and legal scholars across the spectrum have called the three-factor Penn Central test…
New Takings Ripeness Cert Petition (Ours): Knowing The Permissible Uses “to a reasonable degree of certainty” Is All You Need For A Claim To Be Ripe
Here’s the cert petition, filed last week, in a case we’ve posted about. See here (Ninth Circuit arguments) and here (en banc petition).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a takings claim because (it held) the claim isn’t ripe. The government hasn’t made up its mind, and just might allow the owners to…
Join Us August 9, 2023: ALI-CLE’s “How Did Property Rights Fare at the Supreme Court? What Happened in the 2022 Term and What’s Next”
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:00 – 2:00 p.m. (Eastern Time), please join us for ALI-CLE’s web program, “How Did Property Rights Fare at the Supreme Court? What Happened in the 2022 Term and What’s Next.”
Here’s the course description:
This has been a blockbuster U.S. Supreme Court term for property law…
Tuesday Round-Up: Sackett, Tyler, Defending Zoning, Canada Property Rights … And More
Here’s what we’re reading this Tuesday:
- Tiffany Lashmet’s Ag Law in the Field podcast: “Episode #155: Jesse Richardson and Anthony Schutz (Sackett v. EPA)“
- Lawprof Ilya Somin, Brennan Center for Justice: “Supreme Court Strengthens Federal Protection for Property Rights“
- Also from Prof Somin, Volokh Conspiracy: “A Flawed Attempt
…
ICYMI: “Property Rights Hat-Trick: Breaking Down PLF’s Supreme Court Victories” (vid)
Missed our law firm colleagues Jeff McCoy, Damien Schiff, and Christina Martin when they were live, talking about their SCOTUS wins in Wilkins v. United States (is the statute of limitations in federal Quiet Title Act cases a jurisdictional bar?), Sackett v. E.P.A. (scope of Clean Water Act wetlands jurisdiction), and Tyler v. Hennepin County…
Iowa: City Of The Monks Keeping Part Of Your Tax Refund Isn’t A Taking, Red-Light Runners
In Livingood v. City of Des Moines, No. 22-0586 (June 9, 2023), the Iowa Supreme Court held that the city’s use of the Iowa’s process by which the government can satisfy all or part of a taxpayer’s debt to a public agency by grabbing someone’s tax refund. In a nutshell, after trying to collect…
CA1: Despite Two Variance Denials, Takings Case Not Ripe Because It Isn’t Futile To Try Again
Here’s the latest from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on takings ripeness, Haney v. Town of Mashpee, No. 22-1446 (June 6, 2023).
The case centers on Gooseberry Island, Massachusetts, which is zoned by the Town of Mashpee as R-3. But under the Town’s zoning code, any residence must have at…



