Our American Bar Association colleague Ed Thomas (no relation, although we often joke that we’re probably cousins), the President of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Association and a guy who acknowledges that the need to protect against natural disasters must take property rights into account, has compiled some thoughts about the Court of Federal Claims’ recent
CFC: Katrina Flooding Is A Taking
A long opinion (73 pages) from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in St. Bernard Parish Gov’t v. United States, No. 05-1119L (May 1. 2015), and it is worth reading in its entirety (there are even photos and maps embedded). But here’s the short version:
In Arkansas Game & Fish, the United States
NJ Court: There’s No Substitute For The Eminent Domain Process, Even On The Shore, Even In An “Emergency”
Here’s the trial court’s opinion in one of the Jersey Shore “dune replenishment” cases we’ve been following.
These are the cases in which owners of beachfront property (or in one case, a municipality itself) objected to the state and local governments summarily taking easements on private property to be used to armor the shoreline
Summary Takings, Eminent Domain, And Due Process At The Jersey Shore
The people of Margate City, New Jersey, voted to say “no thank you” to building dunes on the beach to limit damage in the event of another hurricane like Sandy were to hit.
But the State of New Jersey decided to do it anyway, and issued an administrative order “taking” an easement. Problem is
Maine: On Second Thought, We Were Right When We Said That Beach Property Is Not Subject To Special Rules
Back in February, we blogged about an opinion from the Maine Supreme Court involving littoral property (that’s beachfront property to all you non-lawyers and Navy people), in which the court concluded that those who were asserting a prescriptive easement over the plaintiffs’ beachfront property– the Town and several neighbors — had not rebutted Maine’s
Federal Court Challenge To NJ’s Beach Replenishment Plan
Here’s the Verified Complaint in a case recently filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey:
Plaintiffs Jenkinson’s Pavilion, a corporation of the State of New Jersey and Jenkinson’s South, Inc., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, (collectively “Plaintiffs”), bring this action, inter alia, (a) for a declaration as a matter of
BIO In Riparian Rights Due Process Case
Here’s the Brief in Opposition filed by the city Kentner v. City of Sanibel, No. 14-404, the case asking the Supreme Court to review an 11th Circuit decision in which the court concluded that riparian rights, although recognized by Florida as property rights, are not “fundamental rights” protected by the Due Process Clause. The
Cal App: “There is no rational nexus, no less rough proportionality”
We’re tied up today and don’t have time to do any analysis, so we post this without comment: Bowman v. California Coastal Comm’n, No. B243015 (Oct. 23, 2014), wherein the court held:
In Kleiniecke v. Montecito Water District (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 240, we held it would not be inequitable to apply the doctrine of
Friday Links: Duck Gets Eminent Domain Power, A Small Piece Of New York City … And More
Here’s what we’re reading on this blustery Friday:
- “Duck given legal tool for access during beach nourishment” reads the headline in Coastal News Today, referencing how the North Carolina legislature recently delegated the power of eminent domain. But before you think that eminent domain abuse has gone too far, it’s the
A Hint Of Judicial Takings From The HAWICA
We usually don’t pay a whole lot of attention to unpublished opinions. Not that they are not interesting mind you, but if the court itself, for whatever reason doesn’t believe the case is worthy of publication, then who are we to say otherwise? But occasionally, we read one that has something worth sharing. Like this