We already knew from its amicus brief brief that the federal government supported the property owner in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647, the case in which the US. Supreme Court agreed to review the continuing validity of the “state procedures” rule of Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473
Here are the cases and other items I either spoke about or mentioned at today’s Transportation Research Board‘s 57th Annual Workshop on Transportation Law in Cambridge, Massachusetts:
The plaintiffs owned mining and homestead claims on land in the Santa Fe National Forest. They claimed they own easements to access these lands, recognized by federal statutes. The government said no, these are just access rights, not easements.
Then a fire, followed by flooding which severely damaged the Forest Service roads which the plaintiffs
Here’s a cert petition we’ve been waiting to drop, in a case we’ve been following out of Florida.
In Town of Ponce Inlet v. Pacetta, LLC, No. 5D14-4520 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. June 16, 2017), the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a Lucas takings verdict, concluding the case might not even be ripe
A short, but published, opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
In Archbold-Garrett v. New Orleans, No. 17-30692 (June 22, 2018), the court held that the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment claims (search and seizure, compensation, and procedural due process) were ripe for federal court, even though
A quick check of the Supreme Court’s docket in the Knick v. Township of Scott case shows that no less than 18 amici briefs have been filed top side. Not all of them in support of the Petitioner mind you (two, the briefs of the United States and of the American Planning Association, are in
The main point we’re trying to make in the amici brief we are filing today on behalf of Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights Legal Fund in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (cert. granted Mar. 5, 2018), is that the average property owner simply cannot fathom why—if a state or local government has taken
Here’s the Petitioner’s Brief on the Merits in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647, the case in which the Supreme Court is being asked to revisit our old nemesis, Williamson County‘s “state exhaustion” requirement, a doctrine which tells takings plaintiffs that they cannot press a takings claim against state or local governments
Thanks to colleague Chris Kramer, we’ll be speaking later this week (Friday, May 4, 2018) in Phoenix at the 22nd Condemnation Summit at the Arizona Biltmore.
Our session will cover “Condemnation Trends: Nationwide & Arizona.” The rest of the day’s agenda looks mighty good too, with session on valuation of easements, paying for
The Minnesota Attorney General settled a civil claim with tobacco companies that the companies had violated state consumer protection laws. Later, several Minnesota consumers brought a claim in state court alleging the State’s failure to pay these plaintiffs a portion of the proceeds from the earlier settlement was an inverse condemnation of their property, raising