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.
California Coastal Commission’s Brief In Opposition In Charles A. Pratt Construction Co. Cert Petition (Penn Central and Williamson County)
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