In Cranston Police Retirees Action Committee v. City of Cranston, No. 2017-36 (June 3, 2019), the Rhode Island Supreme Court concluded that a municipal ordinance “the promulgated a ten-year suspension of the cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) benefit for retirees of the Cranston Police Department and Cranston Fire Department who were enrolled in the City of Cranston’s
New Must-Read Article: Kanner & Berger, “The Nasty, Brutish, and Short Life of Agins v. City of Tiburon”
A must-read for takings mavens. Property rights gurus Professor Gideon Kanner and Michael Berger have published a new article, The Nasty, Brutish, and Short Life of Agins v. Tiburon, 50 Urb. Lawyer 1 (2019). It’s the lead article in the latest volume of The Urban Lawyer, the law journal of our Section of
Merriam: “Awaiting ‘Knick’…Will SCOTUS Fix the Ripeness Mess?”
Our friend and colleague Dwight Merriam recently published this piece about the looming Knick v. Township of Scott decision. Yes, ripeness, and how SCOTUS will treat regulatory takings. We posted our own prognostications here (“Shaka, When The Walls Fell: Yes, Knick Will Be About Takings, But It Will Be More About Federalism“).
Awaiting
Links From Today’s Portland Eminent Domain Conference
Here are the links to the cases which were not in your materials. Theme of the day: amateurs!
Our thanks to colleagues Jill Gelineau and Paul Sundermier for asking us to present. It was good to see our Oregon friends again.
Twitter Is The New Cream
A forthcoming article in the Cornell Law Review (“Virtual Briefing at the Supreme Court“) argues that it’s an “open secret” that the way to influence a SCOTUS case is to hit up social media:
The open secret of Supreme Court advocacy in a digital era is that there is a new way to
Shaka, When The Walls Fell: Yes, Knick Will Be About Takings, But It Will Be More About Federalism
With the opinion in the Knick v. Township of Scott case to drop as soon as Tuesday (we’re guessing the opinion will be by Chief Justice Roberts, by the way), hold on: we’re about to get super nerdy here. Impossibly nerdy. Yes, we’re revisiting the Star Trek analogies. We’ve been down this road before
Lawprof: “Does Legalizing Uber and Lyft ‘Take’ The Property Of Taxi Companies?”
Short answer: no.
But the longer answer which lawprof Ilya Somin discusses in this short podcast is worth listening to. Check it out.
Here’s the summary:
Over the last few years, taxi companies in several cities have brought lawsuits claiming that legalizing ride-share services such as Uber and Lyft violates the Takings Clause of the
New Cert Petition: Fifth Amendment Requires California To Spread The Cost Of Wildfire Inverse Condemnations To Ratepayers
Remember that Christopher Nolan movie from a few years ago, “Inception,” with its dream-within-a-dream storyline?
Well, that’s what a recently-filed cert petition which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to jump into California’s inverse-condemnation-liability-for-wildfires issue reminds us of with its taking-within-a-taking argument, as detailed in the Question Presented:
Whether it is an uncompensated
PruneYard Undone: California’s Union Easement – Which Invites Labor Organizers To Enter Private Property – Isn’t A Physical Taking
The title of this post may have you wondering, especially the part about how a regulation that invites others to physically enter private property, is determined by a court to not be a physical taking. (The court also hints at looking at a physical taking under Penn Central, and not by applying per se
Tuesday Takings And Property Round-Up
Here’s what’s on the reading list for today:
- “Who owns the fertilized eggs? It’s a conundrum” from our Owners’ Counsel colleague Dwight Merriam, a piece about the property aspects of the question.
- “Dismissal of review in takings case restored precedential effect of Court of Appeal opinion” – the California Supreme