To those able to join us today for IMLA’s “The Takings Issue” webinar, thank you. Here are the links to the items which I discussed:
On Koontz:
We’re in Chicago this week participating in the ABA Annual Meeting. While we really are looking forward to a slate of thrilling committee meetings, what we’re really anticipating is the CLE programming. Here are what we think are the highlights:
If you need CLE credits, you are in luck. There’s a plethora of upcoming programs that may be of interest to readers.
First, the ones we’re involved with:
We’ve covered this topic before (see here, here, and here), but we haven’t heard much about it lately. But thanks to this new article by colleague Dwight H. Merriam, we can get back up to speed.
In “Eminent Domain for Underwater Mortgages: Already on the Way to the Bottom of
“Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
Chief Justice Earl Warren,
Brown v. Board of Education
“The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact
Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.”
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
dissenting in Lochner v. New York
“…prejudice against discrete and insular minorities…”
Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, in footnote 4
There’s nothing new in the California Court of Appeal’s opinion in Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. A138301 (July 7, 2015), which is probably why the court didn’t designate it for publication.
But read it anyway, since there’s some interesting bits. Nothing in the details, mind you, but in the overall vibe of
The Land Use Institute, a program that for many years has been planned by co-chairs Frank Schnidman and Gideon Kanner, has found a new home with the American Bar Association’s Section of State and Local Government Law as the main sponsor. It also has a new Planning co-chair, Dean Patty Salkin of Touro Law
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015, the American Planning Association is putting on the 2015 Planning Law Review, a program highlighting the most important and topical cases decided by the courts recently. Here’s the program description:
Planning feels the impact of decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, federal district courts, and state courts. How will
In all of today’s excitement about the Court’s opinions in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275, the “raisin takings” case which we posted about earlier, we almost lost sight of the other property rights decision issued by the Court, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, No.13-1175 (June 22, 2015).
The case did
Yesterday, we were able to attend the Ninth Circuit oral arguments in a case which we posted on last month, Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. 12-17749.
In that case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the complaint filed by the owner of a wine country