The California Coastal Commission has filed its Brief in Opposition to the cert petition 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 California Court of Appeal’s opinion, reported at 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) is
State & Local Government Condemnation Committee Links
Here are links to the cases discussed on the conference call this morning:
- County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership, No. 28882 (Dec. 24, 2008) – public use, pretext, and damages for failed taking
The majority opinion by Justice Acoba, joined by Justices Nakayama and Duffy is posted here:
We hold that (1) a landowner in a condemnationaction is entitled to damages under HRS § 101-27 where the property atissue is not finally taken in the context of a particular condemnationproceeding, irrespective of whether the government attempts to take theland through subsequent condemnation proceedings; (2) abatement doesnot apply where the relief sought in two concurrent actions is not thesame; and (3) although our courts afford substantial deference to thegovernment’s asserted public purpose for a taking in a condemnationproceeding, where there is evidence that the asserted purpose ispretextual, courts should consider a landowner’s defense of pretext. Therefore, (1) automatic denial of statutory damages under HRS §101-27in Condemnation 1 is vacated and the case remanded for a determinationof damages, (2) the court’s conclusion that Condemnation 2 was notabated by Condemnation 2 is vacated and the case remanded for adetermination of whether the public purpose asserted in Condemnation 2was pretextual.
Slip op. at 5. Here’s the concurring and dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Moon joined by Justice Levinson. The briefs in the case are available here: Opening Brief, Answering Brief of the County of Hawaii, Reply Brief. Disclosure: we represent the property owner.
- The Ninth Circuit’s decision in West Linn Corporate Park, LLC v. City of West Linn, Nos. 05-36061, 05-46062 (9th Cir. July 28, 2008) (regulatory takings case removed to US District Court, Ninth Circuit certified questions to Oregon Supreme Court)
- SCOTUS Williamson County ripeness cert petitions (Braun, Agripost, Pratt)
- Aspen Creek Estates, Ltd. v. Town of Brookhaven (New York Court of Appeals – arguments on municipality’s ability to take property purportedly to preserve farmland)
- Kamaole Pointe – Maui affordable housing exaction
Continue Reading State & Local Government Condemnation Committee Links
2008 Land Use In Review: Ripeness Games In Regulatory Takings
In 2008, we continued to castigate the Williamson County ripeness rules, culminating in December when we filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take a harder look at how the “final determination” aspect of the rule is being applied. The rule has two parts.
First, the state-litigation rule requires a regulatory takings plaintiff
New Article: The Ninth Circuit Rediscovers Substantive Due Process In Land Use Cases
The Zoning and Planning Law Report (Thomson | West) has published my article about the post-Lingle developments in substantive due process in the Ninth Circuit. Download a pdf of the article here.
From the introduction:
Substantive due process asserted as a claim for relief has a whiff of danger about it. After all
More Amici Supporting Grant of Cert in Pratt (Penn Central and Williamson County)
There have now been a total of five briefs amicus curiae filed supporting the petition for writ of certiorari in Charles A. Pratt Construction Co. v. California Coastal Commission, No. 08-668 (cert. petition filed Nov. 18, 2008) (SCOTUS docket report here).
We wrote here about the California Court of Appeal’s decision, reported at 76
Further Amici Supporting Grant of Cert in Pratt (Penn Central and Williamson County)
Here is the brief amici curiae of the National Association of Home Builders, California Building Industry Association, Building Industry Association Legal Defense Foundation, and Home Builders Association of Northern California urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Charles A. Pratt Const. Co. v. California Coastal Comm’n, 76
Show Me The Money (In The Court of Federal Claims), Williamson County Ripeness, And A Possible Circuit Split
When the case is captioned “Jerry McGuire v. United States,” and involves an inverse condemnation claim seeking compensation from the government, how could anyone resist making a reference to Jerry Maguire, the 1996 Cameron Crowe film that added “show me the money” to the lexicon? I couldn’t, nor, apparently, could
Our Amicus Brief in Pratt Construction Co. v. California Coastal Commission
Today, on behalf of the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association, we (me and my Damon Key colleagues Christi-Anne Kudo Chock and Matt Evans) filed an amicus brief brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to accept for review the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Charles A. Pratt Const. Co. v. California Coastal Comm’n
Procedural Chutzpah: Williamson County in Action
Let me make sure I am understanding this properly: a property owner does the right thing under the rules of Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), and brings her federal regulatory takings/inverse condemnation claim in state court because its not yet ripe in federal court
9th Circuit: Revised Opinion in McClung v. City of Sumner
A panel of the Ninth Circuit has revised its earlier opinion in McClung v. City of Sumner, No. 07-35231 (Sep. 25, 2008), adding a footnote:
On slip Opinion page 13750, insert a new footnote 3 at the bottom of the page after the sentence that ends “. . . applies to Ordinance 1603.” (and