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
ALI-CLE Palm Springs (72º, Sunny) Here We Come
If you didn’t register to attend the 36th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference later this week in Palm Springs, California, well then, shame on you!
According to the National Weather Service, while you and the rest of the country is freezing, we’ll be enjoying the balmy desert climes, and discussing
Knick Oral (Re)Argument Recording Available
Pay special attention to Justice Breyer’s questioning of Ms. Knick’s counsel, Dave Breemer. Yes, oral argument is the Court’s time to do with as it wishes, but was Justice Breyer actually trying to get at anything, or just running out the clock with a questions that didn’t seem to have any point. Does he really
Knick Post-Argument Round Up
There’s been a lot written after the Supreme Court heard (re)arguments earlier this week in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647, most of it helpful in understanding what issues the Justices are considering, and how each of them might break on the ultimate question: should Williamson County be overruled, and should property owners
Cert Denied, Denied, Denied, Denied In Reg Takings Cases
In case you have been following along, you can take these four cases off your watch list:
- Leone: Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that holding property that has no present use in the hope that someday in the future the government might rescind the use-restrictive regulation, is “investment use,” and therefore no taking.
- Kelleher:
Hot (Eminent Domain) Topics, Cool Jazz
Don’t Miss the 2019 Eminent Domain Litigation Conference from American Law Institute CLE on Vimeo.
Check out this sound blurb, produced by the good media folks at ALI-CLE, about the upcoming Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference. (And no, we didn’t record this in a jazz club; although I wish we had.)
There’s
Knick Transcript Available
Well, no sooner had we hit “publish” on our last post (which ended with, “let’s wait for the transcript”), that the court reporter posted the transcript. Whoa, fast.
Read and analyze away, friends!
Transcript, Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (U.S. Jan. 16, 2019)
Knick Argument Redux: Dark Corners, And A Lack Of Clear Consensus (Chief Justice Remains The Lynchpin)
As Professor Gideon Kanner likes to remind us, eminent domain has been characterized as “the dark corner of the law.” We thought back to that phrase when we joined the queue outside of the Supreme Court this very dark (and very cold) morning, for the rehearing in the Knick v. Township of Scott case
SCOTUS Shortlister Judge Kethledge Has Read The Knick Briefs: “[T]he Takings Clause does not say that private property shall not ‘be taken for public use, without just compensation, and without a remedy in state court.'”
It wasn’t going to be too hard to figure out what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was going to do in Lumbard v. City of Ann Arbor, No. 18-1258 (Jan. 10, 2018). After all, the case involved a federal takings claim in federal court, which the district court dismissed because
Stop Making Sense: Knick, Williamson County, And Lessons For Takings From The Dusky Gopher Frog Decision – Are “Takings” Federally Justiciable?
Our final 2018 post focused on what we thought was the biggest case of that year, and which, we’re predicting, will be the biggest case of 2019: Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647, that’s the one in which the Supreme Court is considering whether federal takings claims can be brought in federal court