This is the third in a series of five posts taking a look at last week’s landmark ruling by a sharply-divided Supreme Court, Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (June 21, 2019). Here are the related posts:
Knick Analysis, Part IV: Why Not Let Sleeping Dogs Lie? The Dissent And Stare Decisis
This is the fourth in our series of five posts with thoughts on the landmark decision in Knick. In this installment, the dissent. Related posts:
- Part I: After More Than 30 Years, Supreme Court Reopens The Federal Courthouse Door To Property Owners
- Part II: The Court Finds A Vehicle In A Zombie-Zoning Case
- Part III:
Knick Analysis, Part V: What’s Next?
This is the fifth and last in our series of posts with thoughts on the landmark decision in Knick. In this post, we’ll be puling out our crystal balls, and doing a bit of forecasting. Here are the related posts:
Knick Round-Up
A lot is being written about Friday’s Supreme Court opinions in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (U.S. June 21, 2019) (including us). Here’s a sampling.
- In Private Cemetery Case, Supreme Court at Last Buries Rule Denying Property Owners Their Day in Federal Court (Ilya Shapiro, Cato).
- In Property Rights Case,
Williamson County Overruled: After Nearly A Century, Supreme Court Finally Has Figured Out What A Regulatory Takings Claim Looks Like
We’ll be doing a longer post with our thoughts on the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (June 21, 2019). But here’s the big picture.
It appears that at least five Justices finally seem to understand what we in the property bar have been saying for decades
“The state-litigation requirement of Williamson County is overruled.”
Property lawyers, dust off your Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and federal judges your long vacay from dealing with regulatory takings and inverse condemnation cases is over, because this just in: by a 5-4 margin (Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, with Justice Kagan writing the dissent), the U.S. Supreme Court today finally (finally!)
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.
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