You heard that right. After the Michigan Court of Appeals’ recent ruling in Lanzi v. Township of St. Clair, No. 329795 (May 23, 2017), you should consider skipping the usual Williamson County step of filing your federal takings claims in state court.
In that case, property owners sued the township after the township’s sewage
Here’s one we’ve been waiting for (we filed a brief in support of the property owner), one in which we were hoping (although not expecting) a more favorable result.
In Brott v. United States, No. 16-1466 (May 31, 2017), the Sixth Circuit held that federal inverse condemnation plaintiffs who sue for more than
We don’t normally post trial court decisions, particularly ones which simply dismiss a case. But the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s recent memorandum order in The Property Management Group, Ltd. v. City of Philadelphia, No. 17-1260 (May 23, 2017), which deals in part with a somewhat unusual takings claim, is
Here’s one that — although unpublished — is still worth a quick read. Because it’s a case where the Sixth Circuit held that a federal court takings claim against the City of Franklin, Tennessee, which is the seat of Williamson County, Tennessee, should be dismissed under Williamson County because it wasn’t ripe.
In Beech v.
Do you really need an excuse to visit Seattle? If you do, and want to earn some CLE credit while you’re at it, check it out the brochure for the upcoming Eminent Domain seminar on May 18, 2017. This is a one-day program that focuses on the hot topics in our area of law. We’ll
We don’t usually post trial court decisions. They are, obviously, subject to change by an appellate court, and because many are interlocutory, alteration by the rendering court iself.
But for this order from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, we’ll make an exception. It’s a land use case (it’s right there
Not a lot in Jabary v. McCollough, No. 15-40009 (Apr. 19, 2017) to grab onto, so we’re not really surprised that the Fifth Circuit didn’t publish. But because the case involves Williamson County takings ripeness and is in our wheelhouse, we’re posting it nonetheless.
The first two sentences, “City building inspector Bret McCullough shut
Scopellitti’s properties were apparently falling apart, as they were subject to a list of code violations, so the city issued citations, and went through the proscribed nuisance abatement procedures. Scopellitti, it seems, pretty much ignored the violations and eventually the city demolished the properties, an action upheld by the city’s administrative process. Next step, an inverse
The Sixth Circuit’s majority opinion in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County, No. 15-2463 (Feb. 10, 2017) isn’t all that exciting — after all, it was a takings case brought in federal court, and you know what that means: Williamson County — but do give it a read. The facts are somewhat unusual, even
Bush’s trees had leafy spurge. “Hey,” said the Weed and Pest Control District, “we’ve got this herbicide stuff. How about we spray your trees free of charge? That will get rid of the leafy spurge.”
“Sure,” responded Bush.
Problem was the herbicide not only killed the leafy spurge. It (allegedly) killed some of the