Believing that discretion was the better part of valor, we didn’t think there would be a challenge to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ opinion in Leone v. County of Maui, No 29692 (June 22, 2012). But we were wrong, and the County of Maui is going all in.
Update Dec. 12, 2012: cert
Planning co-chairs Professor David Callies and Ben Kudo have once again assembled a stellar faculty and put together an agenda that covers
In Moore v. City of Middletown, No 2012-1363 (Aug. 30, 2012), the Ohio Supreme Court held that a property owner did not have standing to bring a regulatory takings claim when a “foreign municipality” (the neighboring city) rezoned an adjacent parcel, because the municipality did not have jurisdiction to exercise eminent domain over his
We are at the ABA Annual meeting this week, so don’t have a lot of time to keep up a long-distance practice and write up comprehensive blog posts, so we’re going to keep it short.
Here’s the latest takings decision from the Federal Circuit in a case we’ve been following, Estate of Hage v. United States
This just in: in Leone v. County of Maui, No. 29696 (June 22, 2012), the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff alleging a regulatory taking is not required to seek an amendment to a Community Plan in order to ripen her claim. A CP amendment is a legislative act, and plaintiffs
Every now and then, there’s a cert petition which those who generally support the petitioner’s side of the equation secretly hope is not granted, and breathe a sigh of relief when the Court denies review. Today, we’re sure that those on the regulatory side of the table are doing just that, because the Court declined
Recently, in Intellectual Laziness on the Supreme Court, a short essay about the Supreme Court’s recent Equal Protection decision about unequal property assessments, Professor Richard Epstein wrote, “[i]t’s time to scrap the irrational ‘rational basis test.'” Decisions like the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion in Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, No. 10-35352
SCOTUSblog has picked the cert petition in Redevelopment Authority of the County of Montgomery, Pennsylvania v. R & J Holding Co.as its “Petition of the Day” —
Issue(s): (1) Whether issue preclusion bars a takings claim based on the Fifth Amendment only where the state court expressly decides Fifth Amendment issues or
We couldn’t post much last week due to a pressing engagement on Friday before a three-judge federal district court (the case challenging Hawaii’s latest state reapportionment plan on Equal Protection grounds in which we represent the plaintiffs — more here). But the court took the matter under submission, so while we are awaiting a
Update: the latest in the latest Williamson County-related cert petition here.
—————————————————————————————————-
If you tried to explain the practical results of Williamson County‘s ripeness requirements to someone not familiar in the last 30 years of regulatory takings jurisprudence, they would probably think you were joking.
As we’ve explained many times, under Williamson