Just published: the 2020 Zoning and Planning Law Handbook (Green Book). The first section of the Summary of Contents is about Takings, and includes as the lead piece Professor Gideon Kanner and Michael Berger’s tour-de-force article, “The Nasty, Brutish, and Short Life of Agins v. City of Tiburon.” It also includes
Fifth Circuit: Texas Groundwater Rights Are Takings Clause “Property”
There’s a lot of opinion in the U.S. Court’s of Appeals’ opinion in Stratta v. Roe, No. 18-50994 (May 29, 2020). Yes, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal of a takings claim. But most of the opinion is devoted to the question of whether a Texas water conservation board — an agency whose
Three New Property And Takings Articles From William & Mary Law Review
Looking for some property and takings scholarly reading while you cool your heels at home? Well, the William and Mary Law Review has recently published no less than three worthy pieces, all available for download.
- Charles D. Wallace, When (and Why) the Levee Breaks: A Suggested Causation Framework for Takings Claims That Arise From Government-Induced
Join Us This Week: May 12-14, 2020 For (Virtual) Land Use Institute Webinar Series
Join us starting tomorrow, Tuesday, May 12, 2020 for the 34th Land Use Institute. Originally scheduled for April in Tampa, we obviously couldn’t do tha, so we did the next best thing — moved this venerable course online. The Planning Chairs (Frank Schnidman and Dean Patricia Salkin) have assembled the usual hot topics session
CA9 En Banc Petition: Must A Property Owner Exhaust Admin Remedies Before Filing A Federal Takings Claim?
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. In Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 17-17504 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2020), a 2-1 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals held that a federal takings case was not ripe because the plaintiffs had not sought an exemption (“variance”) from the regulation.
Maryland Resurrects California’s Agins Rule: Owner Must Seek Agency Variance, Which If Granted, Means “owner no longer has a takings claim and the right to alternative relief in the form of just compensation”
On one hand, there’s a lot going on in the Maryland Court of Appeal’s opinion in Maryland Reclamation Assoc, Inc. v. Harford County, No. 52 (Apr. 24, 2020), a case we’ve been following. The opinion is a whopping 81 pages, and details facts that go back decades. On the other hand, the opinion
Still Time To Join Us (Tomorrow): ALI-CLE Webinar – Strategies for Litigating Regulatory Taking Cases
There’s still time to join us tomorrow, Friday, April 24, 2020 at 2-3pm Eastern Time, they will be presenting “Strategies for Litigating Regulatory Taking Cases” in a webinar produced by ALI-CLE. Register here (multiple attendee discounts available).
At the recent ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference in Nashville, our colleagues
Takings Nerd Christmas: Fordham Urban Law Journal’s Knick Symposium (feat. “Sublimating Municipal Home Rules and Separation of Power in Knick v. Township of Scott”)
Lacking things to read during your shut-down? Well, we have the solution: the Fordham Urban Law Journal has devoted an entire issue to Knick and takings ripeness (“Taking Account: Procedure, Substance, and Stare Decisis in the Post-Knick World“).
Our article “Sublimating Municipal Home Rule and Separation of Powers in Knick v.
Shades Of Takings In Both Of Yesterday’s SCOTUS Opinions
Like that old radio bit “Chicken Man” (“He’s everywhere! He’s everywhere!“), it looks like the robed ones down at 1 First Street NE are, like us, seeing takings lurking in cases where takings may not be the first thing on the menu.
For example, in yesterday’s opinions about whether the Sixth
New Cert Petition (Ours) Offers A Moment Of Zen: If The Government Makes The Final Decision But The Property Isn’t Yet Actually Injured, Must The Owner Sue For A Taking Now?
Here’s the cert petition that along with our colleague Steve Jakubowski we’re filing today in Campbell v. United States, No. 19-___, in which we ask the Court to review the Federal Circuit’s ruling that the plaintiffs in a Court of Federal Claims takings case missed the Tucker Act’s statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. §