Here’s the article, recently published in the UMKC Law Review with thoughts on Murr v. Wisconsin, the case about the “denominator” issue in regulatory takings cases.
We won’t get into it in detail (if you are interested, you can read the article yourself), except to say that therein we offer views of what
Yes, this is detail from the Supreme Court’s front door.
This is the first in what will be a short series of five posts with thoughts on the landmark decision in Knick. In this installment, a crash course in the extensive doctrinal background necessary to understand why the Knick Court did what it did. Here
This is the second in a series of five posts taking a look at last week’s landmark ruling by a sharply-divided Supreme Court, Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (June 21, 2019). Here are the related posts:
This is the third in a series of five posts taking a look at last week’s landmark ruling by a sharply-divided Supreme Court, Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (June 21, 2019). Here are the related posts:
This is the fourth in our series of five posts with thoughts on the landmark decision in Knick. In this installment, the dissent. Related posts:
This is the fifth and last in our series of posts with thoughts on the landmark decision in Knick. In this post, we’ll be puling out our crystal balls, and doing a bit of forecasting. Here are the related posts:
A lot is being written about Friday’s Supreme Court opinions in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (U.S. June 21, 2019) (including us). Here’s a sampling.
We’ll be doing a longer post with our thoughts on the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (June 21, 2019). But here’s the big picture.
It appears that at least five Justices finally seem to understand what we in the property bar have been saying for decades
Property lawyers, dust off your Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and federal judges your long vacay from dealing with regulatory takings and inverse condemnation cases is over, because this just in: by a 5-4 margin (Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, with Justice Kagan writing the dissent), the U.S. Supreme Court today finally (finally!)
The recent opinion of the Texas Court of Appeals (First District) in University of Houston v. Jim Olive Photography, No. 01-18-00534 (June 11, 2019) addressed a fascinating (and still unsolved) question: does intellectual property qualify as “property” for purposes of the takings clause?
The court held “no,” but that answer isn’t definitive.
The facts
