Here’s what we’re reading today:
Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows Tiburon, California, even if you’ve never stepped foot there. Yes, that Tiburon. Well, the beat goes on: the Agins litigation wasn’t the only time that the town and its residents combined forces to try and draw up the drawbridge and prevent the building of more
A developer alleged that the city didn’t live up to its contractual obligations.
The city thought it would be a good place for a new headquarters for something called “Perfect Game Incorporated.” The usual plans ensued, including agreements between the city, a non-profit redevelopment facilitator, and Preston Hollow, a “finance company that funds economic development
R.S. Radford’s most-recent article, Knick and the Elephant in the Courtroom: Who Cares Least About Property Rights? in the latest issue of the Texas A&M Journal of Property Law, should be next on your to-read list.
Here’s the summary of the article:
Throughout the thirty-four-year history of Williamson County, one fact was taken for
What’s up with that (sorta) snarky headline, you ask? After all, isn’t the PennEast v. New Jersey case, heard yesterday by the Supreme Court, a real honest-to-goodness eminent domain case about a pipeline?
Doesn’t the transcript show terms like “in rem,” “takings,” “eminent” and “eminent domain” were used a whole lot? Aren’t a lot of
Charlie Brown got a bag of rocks for Halloween.
But you aren’t so cruel, and want to give better gifts this holiday season to the dirt lawyer in your life, no? Here are our 2020 suggestions for stocking stuffers that will make property mavens celebrate the season.
Start with this one, Professor Bart Wilson’s
Join us next Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at 3pm ET (12 noon Pacific) for the free webinar “Shutdowns, Closures, Moratoria, and Bans,” produced by Pacific Legal Foundation and Owners’ Counsel of America.
Along with my colleagues Leslie Fields (Executive Director, OCA), and Jim Burling (PLF), I’ll be talking about the legal foundations for
When an opinion starts off with “[t]his case offers a feast of legal issues – ranging from procedural to constitutional – but its main course is a cautionary tale to government entities: they must follow the exact statutory requirements for bringing a condemnation action[,]” you just know that you have to read the entire thing.
Here’s the Virginia Supreme Court’s order (over vociferous dissents) extending a ban on state courts issuing writs of eviction and processing unlawful detainer (eviction) proceedings:
“Effective August 10,2020, and through September 7,2020, pursuant to Va. Code § 17.1-330, the issuance of writs of eviction pursuant to unlawful detainer actions is suspended and continued. However, this
California law has decriminalized weed. Local governments, however, may regulate the use, sale, possession, and other things (like it can regulate other perfectly legal things). You know, police power kind of regulation.
Under that latter authority, the County of Santa Cruz adopted an ordinance that prohibits a medical weed facility from growing more than 99