We’re not suggesting you read the entire majority and dissenting opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Landcastle Acquisition Corp. v. Renasant Bank, No. 20-13735 (Jan. 12, 2023). After all, together they comprise 126 pages (yikes!). And the case isn’t our usual fare, but “arises out of the insolvency
Guest Post – Kady Valois, “Divide (Or Not) and Conquer: Florida’s Test For The Regulatory Takings Larger Parcel”
Today’s post is by our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague Kady Valois, writing about last week’s opinion by the Florida District Court of Appeal (Second District) in Lake Lincoln, LLC v. County of Manatee, No. 2D21-2826 (Jan. 13, 2023),
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Divide and Conquer (Or Not): Florida’s Test
For The Regulatory Takings Larger Parcel
by
(Nearly) Last Call: There’s Still Time To Join Us For The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, Austin
We really want you there…
One (nearly) last reminder that there’s still time to register for your space at the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 1-4, 2023, in Austin. In the past several years, we have sold out due to the conference room capacity and the conference hotel block.
Federal Court: Seattle Facilitating Downtown Takeover Takings Claim Is Going To Trial
Saturday in the park…I think it was the Fourth of July
Here’s the latest on a case we’ve been following, about the blocking off of a neighborhood in Seattle and making it a no-go zone for those whom the takeoverers wanted to keep out.
Yes, the CHOP/CHAZ case is still a thing. [And before we
Lucky Friday The Thirteenth: SCOTUS Grants New Takings And Excessive Fines Case
Here at inversecondemnation.com, we were all set to call it a week and take a break from posting until Monday.
But SCOTUS had other ideas.
In this Order issued today, it agreed to review Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, a case and an issue we’ve been following closely.
The Questions
CA4: Property Owner Isn’t “Vested” So No Takings Property
When we first read the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in PEM Entities, LLC v. County of Franklin, No. 21-1317 (Jan. 5, 2023), our reaction was one of skepticism. After all, at first blush, the court seemed to have concluded that in order to possess a property right protected by the Takings Clause, the
Mahon At 100: “A Landmark Centennial From a Land Marked By the Past” (Sam Spiegelman, Yale J. Reg.)
We continue our series on the 100th anniversary of the mother lode of takings case, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (Dec. 11, 1922), with this short essay recently published in the “Notice & Comment” feature of the Yale Journal on Regulation.
Md App: If You Want To Overturn The Amortization Doctrine, Take It Upstairs
You know the “amortization” doctrine: when an existing legal use is declared illegal, the government can avoid a takings claim by slowly phasing out the use, supposedly to allow the owner to recoup investment. The doctrine is established in Maryland by Grant v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 129 A.2d 363 (Md.
The Good The Bad And The Ugly: There’s Something For Everyone In This Florida Takings Opinion
Here’s the latest from a case we’ve featured here before.
There’s something for everyone in the Florida District Court of Appeal (Second District)’s opinion in Jamieson v. Town of Fort Myers Beach, No. 2D21-2722 (Dec. 29, 2022).
Let’s start with the outcome: the court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment in a wetlands
North Dakota: State May Lease Out Property It Doesn’t Own As Long As It Calls It “Overinclusive Leasing Activity”
We’ve had the North Dakota Supreme Court’s opinion in Wilkinson v. Bd. of Univ. & School Lands, No. 20220037 (Nov. 10, 2022), in our queue for a while because it isn’t exactly the clearest opinion we’ve come across. It is relatively short, so that’s not the issue. But it is cryptic and poorly written