Synchronicity (Jung, not The Police). Serendipity. Lattice of coincidence. Whatever you call it, sometimes things seem to come in waves.
So it seems with the statue of limitations for inverse and regulatory takings claims this week. We had not dealt with the issue for a while. Radio silence. Then boom! The
Recently, we requested crowdsourcing of this year’s “come to the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference video.” Instead of doing the video ourselves, we asked folks to “please send a short clip of you and/or your colleagues telling us why you think the Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference is the place to be
Leave it to Federal Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk — who, as far as we can tell, has never once ruled against the government in a takings case — to conclude that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) actually works to the detriment of
Usually, when we’re scanning the daily email from the Federal Circuit for takings decisions of interest, we look for “United States” as the defendant, and our eyes glaze over the other cases on the court’s docket such as patent matters. But today, we were rewarded: a takings issue in a patent matter.
Details soon. In the meantime, get your earlier registration discount.
Please read the Florida District Court of Appeal’s opinion in City of Fort Lauderdale v. Hinton, No. 4D18-2089 (July 24, 2019), especially the part starting on page 9 (the opinion is only 12 pages), where the court frames one of the arguments made by the appellant, Fort Lauderdale:
“The City contends that the Hintons
The Land Use Committee of the ABA’s Section of State and Local Government Law is sponsoring a free (for Section members) informal webinar about the latest in takings law:
Knick Picking Regulatory Takings: Did the Court Right a Wrong, or Wrong a Right?
Friday, July 26 | 2 – 2:30pm ET
Here’s hoping you can
I am grateful that planning chairs Justin Hodge and Jeremy Baker invited me to their conference. A room full of experts. Here are the links to the cases and other items I spoke about:
Posted without significant comment, the Court of Appeals of Washington’s recent unpublished opinion in Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Utility District, No. 36002-4-III (July 16, 2019):
Snoqualmie Pass Utility District argues that the subsequent purchaser rule bars the Darlands’ inverse condemnation claim. We agree.
In Hoover v. Pierce County, 79 Wn. App. 427, 433
Looking for something to do this Tuesday? How about reading a 120-page federal court complaint challenging New York’s recently-adopted rent control/stabilization statute as a taking?
Thank you, Knick.