Today, on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, we filed this amicus brief in Kurtz v. Verizon New York, Inc., No. 14-439 (cert. petition filed Oct. 14, 2014). The cert petition, filed on Kurtz’s behalf by the Institute for Justice, is posted here.
That’s the case in
“You can’t have rights without advocates.”
– Michael Berger
We’re at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia today for the 11th Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference. As we’ve noted earlier, Michael Berger is this
Update: San Francisco is going to appeal.
It cost a lot to live in San Francisco, these days. A whole lot, whether you own, or rent.
If you’re a renter, however, you should hope and pray that your landlord wants out of the rental business. Because under a San Francisco ordinance, property owners
When the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Kurtz v. Verizon New York, Inc., 758 F.3d 506 (2d Cir. 2014), our comments were rather harsh (“Which means that to reach the result, the court simply rewrote the plaintiff’s complaint and in the process blurred the distinction between a takings claim … and a procedural
Here’s one for the regulatory takings mavens, because it has just about every conceivable issue: ripeness, res judicata (yes, arugment was that the complaint was filed both too early and too late), Rooker–Feldman, the Tax Injunction Act, and an analysis of whether the property owner’s complaint stated a claim for relief under
Ah, Williamson County. We’ve ranted about it before, so we won’t do so here (again). But takings mavens know that a property owner must meet two tests before she can raise a takings claim against a state or local government in federal court: the state or local government must have reached a final
Tennessee Supreme Court, Nashville
In Phillips v. Montgomery County, No. M2012-00737-SC-R11-CV (Aug. 18, 2014), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a property owner could recover under the state’s inverse condemnation statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-123, for a regulatory taking:
We hold that, like the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution, article I
When the one side or the other in the public debate complains about “judicial activism,” they’re usually talking about judges legislating from the bench — finding new rights, reading words into statutes that aren’t there, and the like. But that species of judicial activism doesn’t bother us all that much since we rarely see it
There’s still time to register for one or more upcoming CLE programs sponsored by the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law:
Check this out: Vermont lawprof John Echeverria has launched a blog about “Takings Litigation.” Which, given the predilections of the author (organizer of the anti-takings conference, and recently presented with the Koontz Catatonia Award), probably should be called “Takings Defense” or the “No Takings Blog,” but who are we to say?