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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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. §
We don’t usually post trial court decisions, but when one comes along that tees up some interesting issues and is likely to get pushed further up the food chain, we’re all ears.
That’s the case with the Eastern District of North Carolina’s order in Zito v. North Carolina Coastal Res. Comm’n, No. 2:19-CV-11-D (Mar.
As long-time readers know, we often kvetch about the way many courts ignore the Palazzolo rule that simply because someone obtains property subject to preexisting restrictions on use does not preclude them automatically from raising takings claims. See here, here, here, and here, for example. More about the Palazzolo case here, including
This just in. In Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 17-17504 (Mar. 17, 2020), a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a regulatory takings claim which the District Court threw out for not being ripe under Williamson County‘s “state procedures”