It’s always a safe bet to predict that the Supreme Court will decline to review a case. Statistics, after all, are on the side of “cert denied” regardless of the substantive merits of a case.
But there are some cases, like Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. petition filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case
Last Friday, we noted that the Supreme Court was scheduled to consider whether to accept cert in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. petition filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s residential rent control law as a taking, among other things.
However, according to the Court’s docket report this morning, the
Most likely, by the time you read this, the Supreme Court will have decided whether to grant cert in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. petition filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s residential rent control law as a taking, among other things. Today, you see, is the day the Court
Here is the Reply Brief in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (filed Mar. 20, 2012), the case in which a Manhattan property owner is challenging New York’s rent control law as unconstitutional:
Respondents confuse the issues with their scattershot assertions that rent stabilization concerns merely “landlord tenant relations,” “economic regulation,” “price controls” and “economic
What owners of rent-controlled mobile home parks say to courts: “Unfair! Due Process! Rate-of-Return! Takings! Equal Protection!”
What courts hear: “blah blah DENIED blah blah blah DISMISSED blah blah blah AFFIRMED blah blah blah blah…”
Latest example: Besaro Mobile Home Park, LLC v. City of Fremont, No. A130753 (Mar. 1, 2012).
Here’s the state’s BIO in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s rent control ordinance as a due process violation and as a taking. We posted the cert petition and the three amicus briefs in support here.
Both respondents waived their rights to file
Here’s the BIO in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s rent control ordinance as a due process violation and as a taking. Although the respondents waived their right to respond, the Court requested they file an opposition.
We posted the cert petition and the
The Stanford Law Review has been doing a good job lately of talking takings. Last week, it published a note about judicial takings and the Stop the Beach Renourishment case. Now comes the Law Review’s online edition with a new essay by Professor Richard Epstein, “Physical and Regulatory Takings: One Distinction Too Many,”
Professor Richard Epstein, in his own inimitable and unequivocal style, opines on rent control and the Harmon cert petition in a Federalist Society podcast. A must-listen. Here’s the description:
In March 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued summary judgment in Harmon v. Markus, a challenge to New York’s rent stabilization law
As he writes in yesterday’s column, “Supreme Court should take on New York City’s rent control laws.” He’s writing about the Harmon case and the cert petition which the Supreme Court is currently considering:
Rent control is unconstitutional because it is an egregious and uncompensated physical occupation of property. The Constitution says that