In a notable case worth following, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals is considering a new appeal involving whether a per se regulatory takings claim is ripe under Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), and whether in order to ripen a takings claim, a property
On Judicial Takings, And The Hawaii Water Rights Backstory In Stop The Beach Renourishment
The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to review the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Walton County v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc.,998 So.2d 1102 (Fla. Sep. 29, 2008), which heldthat a state statute prohibiting “beach renourishment” without apermit did not effect a taking of littoral (beachfront) property, eventhough it altered the long-standing rights
Fifth Circuit: Fourth Amendment Seizure Of Beachfront Land Claim Not Subject To Williamson County Ripeness
A very interesting decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Severance v. Patterson, No. 07-20409 (Apr. 23, 2009).
While much of the commentary about the case (see, e.g., here, here, and here) has focused on the dissenting opinion’s ad hominem on the plaintiff’s
Cert Denied In Agripost (Williamson County)
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied review to Agripost, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Florida, No. 08-567 (cert. petition filed Oct. 27, 2008), another case asking the Court to overrule Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), the decision that gave us the weird ripeness rules
Overrule Williamson County: Agripost Cert Petititon A “Petition To Watch”
Thank you to several of our readers for pointing out that SCOTUSblog has determined that Agripost, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Florida, No. 08-567 (cert. petition filed Oct. 27, 2008) is a “petition to watch” for the Supreme Court’s March 27, 2009 conference.
The petition asks the Court to overrule Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v.
Conference: ABA Section Of State & Local Government Law Virtual Spring Meeting
Instead of an in-person Spring Meeting this year, the ABA Section of State & Local Government Law will be “meeting” virtually from March 31-April 2, 2009. As part of the meeting, the Section will be featuring a series of teleconference and live audio webcasts on a variety of subjects including topics near and dear to
First Circuit: Williamson County Applies To Eminent Domain Challenges
In Lichoulas v. City of Lowell, No. 08-1485, 08-2023 (1st Cir., Jan. 30, 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals declined to rule on a property owner’s objection to a taking for redevelopment, holding that public use challenges belong in state court. Interestingly, the court cited Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of
New Eminent Domain Book: Current Condemnation Law: Takings, Compensation & Benefits (2d ed.)
A recent book of interest to condemnation lawyers, Current Condemnation Law: Takings, Compensation & Benefits (2d ed.).
The book is co-edited by my Owner’s Counsel of America colleague Alan T. Ackerman. (He also has a blog about eminent domain issues.)
From the blurb:
Condemnation of property is an especially topical subject after the U.S.
Cert Denied In Ripeness And Penn Central Case
It’s easy to blog a case when you or your colleagues win it, and we’ve had plenty to talk about lately in that department in eminent domain and zoning law.
On the other hand, it’s not so easy to write about a case when you don’t prevail. Today is one of those days. The
Reply In Support Of Petition In Pratt v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n – Penn Central And Williamson County
The property owner has filed its Reply in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Charles A. Pratt Const. Co. v. California Coastal Comm’n, No. 08-668 (cert. petition filed Nov. 18, 2008) (SCOTUS docket report here). The petition seeks review of the California Court of Appeal’s opinion reported at 76 Cal. Rptr.