Ripeness | Knick

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. In Bridge Aina Lea, LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm’n, the plaintiff filed its complaint in state circuit court alleging that the LUC violated state and federal law (due process, takings, vested rights, and more) when it reclassified “urban” land on the Big…

In Edwards v. City of Jonesboro, No. 10-2405 (July 14, 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a takings claim brought in federal court after the property owner prevailed on the same claim in state court was not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but that the state court judgment…

If you understand the title of this post, congratulations: you are a regulatory takings wonk.

The property owners have filed a cert petition asking the Supreme Court to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Alto Eldorado Partnership v. County of Santa Fe, 634 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2011). The Questions Presented explain the background…

Today’s Ninth Circuit opinion in Vandevere v. Lloyd, No. 09-35957 (July 11, 2011), raises a couple of interesting questions having little to do with the merits of whether Alaska’s commercial fishing regulations worked a taking or a due process violation because they shortened the fishing season and limited the number of fish that can…

Synchronicity. Serendipity. Yin and Yang. Sometimes things just seem to work out.

Exhibit A: No sooner do we post a case about when inverse condemnation cases are filed too late (see Federal Circuit On The Metaphysics Of Takings Claim Accrual), what comes across our desk? A case about when inverse…

“Hard cases make bad law” goes the cliché.* But in the case of the Williamson County ripeness requirement in federal takings cases, the bad law is an entirely self-inflicted wound and cannot be blamed on lousy facts or hard cases. Others have done a much better job of deconstructing Williamson County‘s faulty history…

We don’t usually cover unpublished decisions. They are usually cryptic, and depending on local court rules, can’t be cited. But as we explained before, there are exceptions. The Ninth Circuit’s memorandum decision in Molony v. Crook County, No. 09-35624 (May 27, 2011) is one that raises some interesting issues.

First, what’s a takings…

Any regular reader of these pages knows about the Williamson County/San Remo Hotel “ripeness” Catch-22: try vindicating a property owner’s federal constitutional right in federal court in the first instance, and the federal court will tell you that you are too early — a regulatory taking is of no constitutional moment until the…

Here’s Bettendorf v. St. Croix County, No. 10-1359 (Jan. 20, 2011) a 2-1 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, another regulatory takings opinion we’ve been meaning to post for a while. The case involves a property owner’s claim that the county’s changing the zoning on his land from commercial…