Here’s the latest complaint challenging coronavirus-related orders (in this case, the City of Los Angeles’ rent payment and eviction moratoria) as a taking.
More here from the LA Times: “Landlord group sues city of L.A. over coronavirus anti-eviction protections.”
You should probably read the entire document, as it is drafted well. But
Way back when (you know, less than 2 months ago, a lifetime in coronavirus time) when the plaintiffs filed the complaint, we noted that, win or lose, it laid out the takings argument in a comprehensive and understandable way.
It still may be that the arguments are worthwhile pursuing. Our more comprehensive thoughts on
Here’s the city’s Brief in Opposition in a case we’ve been following (so closely, in fact, that we filed an amicus brief in support of the property owner – see “Amicus Brief: Invocation Of “Police Power” Is Not Dispositive In Takings“). A case in which the issues have taken on new and heightened
Here’s the recording of the Federalist Society’s Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group teleforum we did a couple of weeks ago, “COVID-19 & Property Rights: Do Government Actions in Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic Create Compensable Takings?” Stream above, or download it here.
There’s a lot of opinion in the U.S. Court’s of Appeals’ opinion in Stratta v. Roe, No. 18-50994 (May 29, 2020). Yes, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal of a takings claim. But most of the opinion is devoted to the question of whether a Texas water conservation board — an agency whose
Did you know that the North Carolina Constitution does not formally contain a “takings” or “just compensation” clause? Instead of an outright prohibition on uncompensated takings for public use, the N.C. Constitution has a “law of the land” clause:
Sec. 19. Law of the land; equal protection of the laws.
No person shall be
Congratulations – if you understood this post’s headline, you are officially a rails-to-trails nerd. A super-nerd.
But even if not, you shouldn’t need a rails-to-trails nerd’s level of knowledge to understand and appreciate the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Caquelin v. United States, No. 19-1385 (May 29, 2020). It’s a case worth reading
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following (briefs here, and oral argument recording here).
Any eminent domain lawyer will tell you that loss of access cases can be difficult. In some jurisdictions, you have to lose all access before the court will consider you harmed. Or the courts see a
Things moving quickly: remember way back when — in April, was it? — when a Connecticut lounge owner sued a mayor and the governor, asserting that a shut-down order was a taking?
Well, the court recently denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order.
There’s nothing in the Ruling about the takings