Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following (because it is a product of our shop: we represent the property owners/plaintiffs).
In this Order, the Florida Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction to review the Third District Court of Appeals en banc opinion in Shands v. City of Marathon. So that decision
If you were creating a moot court problem, what topic would you pick? You’d want a question that is a hot topic. Unresolved by the Supreme Court. Controversial, interesting, and complex.
Well, we have just the issue for you: our favorite topic, takings.
That appears to be what the powers-that-be behind Harvard Law School’s moot
Check this out: a significant and important decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in an issue we’ve been following.
In Alford v. Walton County, No. 2021-13999 (Nov. 17, 2025), the unanimous panel concluded that the county’s Co-19 restrictions, which closed all beaches (public and private) in the county
There’s not a lot of new territory forged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Pena v. City of Los Angeles, No. 24-2422 (Nov. 4, 2025), holding that the city could not be liable for a taking after SWAT officers severely damaged a home in the course of
As we wrap up another year, it’s time to look ahead to the one event that always gets our eminent domain blood pumping: the annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference. Details, including faculty list, a complete agenda, and registration information is posted here.
Now in its 43rd year, this flagship gathering
The caption of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Purgatory Recreation I, LLC v. United States, No. 24-1241 (Oct. 21, 2025), and the fact that the plaintiff raised a takings claim, should give you some idea where this is heading.
After all, when the defendant in a takings claim
When an opinion starts off with “[t]his zoning/inverse condemnation case revolves around the availability of parking…” you kinda know, whatever the issues might be, that the court isn’t likely headed in a good direction for the claimant.
That’s exactly how the Supreme Court of South Carolina began The Gulfstream Cafe, Inc. v. Georgetown County
Is “personal” property (as contrasted with real estate), or property that is used in commercial dealings, not “private property” is protected from uncompensated takings by the Fifth Amendment?
That’s what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit appeared to conclude in Green Room LLC v. State of Wyoming, No. 24-853 (Oct. 27
You’ve all heard the phrase “cut out the middleman” in advertising or crafty dealmaking. Deal directly and realize a savings, or somehow get a better bargain.
To our eyes, it looks like that’s what the New York legislature might have had in mind when it amended its Medicaid statutes to cut out “a
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is the latest court to wade in (or more accurately, re-wade in) to what we call the SWAT Takings issue.
The logic is sound: under a governmental power (police power), the government (SWAT) has physically invaded (deprived the owner of an essential stick of private property, the right to exclude) a home (private property), for public use (police apprehending suspects is a good thing), triggering the obligation to spread the burden of this public good to the entire public (Armstrong).
Continue Reading CA7: No Taking For SWAT Destroying Property While Executing Valid Warrant