“I’ll take ‘Words I Like to See’ for $800, Alex.“
In this Order, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear two important property rights cases (are there any other kind?). Both are cases we’ve been following — and indeed are now playing a part in.
The first is Devillier v. Texas (the
Before you get too excited by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Catholic Healthcare Int’l, Inc. v. Genoa Twp., No. 22-2139 (Sep. 11, 2023), a spoiler up front: this may be a good ripeness decision, but this isn’t a takings case.
But you takings mavens may still want
According to the County, this is an “industrial” use,
incompatible with “agricultural” zoning
Note: sorry, this is one of those longer posts, but the topic is a serious one, so we felt it needed more than our usual cursory treatment.
How Can That Be?
We’ve been somewhat reluctant to post too much on the legal
There’s a lot to digest in the California Court of Appeal’s opinion in Lafayette Bollinger Dev., LLC v. Town of Moraga, No. A163636 (July 19, 2023).
Lafayette Bollinger Development, LLC v. Town of Moraga, No. A163636 (Cal. Ct. App. July 19, 2023)
Remember after Knick when we predicted that the Supreme Court’s opening back up the federal courthouse doors wasn’t the end of the procedural gamesmanship, but merely the opening of a new chapter? That it was time to dust off your old Federal Courts hornbook, because things like the Eleventh Amendment, Rooker/Feldman, abstention
Why is it, you ask, that the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (scheduled next February 1-3, 2024, in New Orleans) is an event that seems to be growing in popularity and attendance. In recent years, we have standing room only in the Conference halls, and have sold out the hotel block.
A short (but interesting) one from the Ohio Supreme Court. In State ex rel. Balunek v. Marchbanks, No. 2021-1469 (July 25, 2023), the court held that a physical takings claim alleging the DOT cut off access to property was ripe, even though the owner might have applied for permit to gain access.
As part
The city told an owner whose three parcels were outside of the city’s jurisdiction that if it wanted the city’s permission to replat into 74 parcels, it would need city water and sewer service to each of the proposed lots.
So the owner asked to connect to the city’s water and sewer system (deliberately overbuilt
Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been following.
Let’s say the government thinks you have committed a crime (or someone else has). To investigate, it seizes property as evidence or potential evidence. But after things wrap up and it no longer needs the property as evidence, the government doesn’t return it to its owner.