You remember that longstanding trope: that matters of land use are “local” issues, and thus in civil rights claims involving a state or local government interfering with the right of property federal courts should avoid adjudication until the government has had every chance to do the right thing (even where it is patently obvious that
Professor Kanner’s Final Article: “Eminent Domain Projects That Didn’t Work Out,” 12 Brigham-Kanner Prop. Rts. J. 171 (2023)
Here it is — Professor Gideon Kanner’s final law journal article, published shortly before his passing:
Gideon Kanner, Eminent Domain Projects That Didn’t Work Out, 12 Brigham-Kanner Prop. Rts. J. 171 (2023).
Appropriately, we think, published in William and Mary Law School’s Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Journal, named in part in Gideon’s honor.
La Cour suprême du Canada Considering Effect Of “The Scheme” On Takings And Compensation
“Good morning, Justices”
You know that from time to time — mostly thanks to our friend and colleague Shane Rayman and his firm — we cover property goings-on north of the border when a good property rights case comes before the Supreme Court of Canada (see here and here for past examples).
Well, here’s another
Join Us For 100 Years Of Pennsylvania Coal (Pace Land Use Conference, Dec. 8, 2023)
22nd annual Alfred B. DelBello Land Use
and Sustainable Development Conference
Come, join us (and others) on Thursday-Friday, December 7-8, 2023, at Pace Law School in White Plains, New York for the Land Use and Sustainable Development Conference (this year’s conference theme is “Balancing Economic Realities with Environmental and Social Concerns”).
We’re speaking about the
(Un)Happy 97th Birthday, Euclid!
On this day in 1926, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (Nov. 22, 1926).
You know this one (shame on you if you don’t!) – it is the case in which the Supreme Court first upheld — against
Legislative Exactions Merits Brief (Ours): “the text and history of the Takings Clause admit no exception for legislative takings”
Here’s the merits brief in a case we’ve been following (naturally, because it is one of ours). This is Sheetz v. El Dorado County, the case which asks whether a condition on development (aka an “exaction”) is exempt from the close nexus and rough proportionality standards of Nollan/Dolan/Koontz simply because the exaction is imposed
Here’s The Program For The 41st ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-3, 2024, New Orleans
Here’s the brochure and the full agenda and registration information for the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference at the JW Marriott in New Orleans, February 1-3, 2024.
This is the long-running nationally-focused conference on all things eminent domain, takings, valuation, and related. We have three tracks, from which you can
New Takings Ripeness Cert Petition (Ours): One Variance, Two Variance, Three Variance…More?
Here’s a takings cert petition, filed yesterday.
Because this is one of ours, we’re not going to comment much beyond reposting the Question Presented, and to let you know this one is about how the “relatively modest” requirement that the government have taken some “definitive position” about what uses are allowed and what uses
Alabama: Banning Short-Term Rentals Is Constitutional (PS – “the Alabama Constitution does not recognize regulatory-takings claims”)
A quick one from the Alabama Supreme Court. In Dixon v. City of Auburn, No SC-2022-0741 (Oct. 27, 2023), the court rejected a property owner’s claim that the city outlawing short term rentals of residential properties — when the plaintiff had been renting his basement for a while — was not a violation of
CA10: Absence Of Restrictions On Land Uses Isn’t A Due Process Property Right
In Van Sant & Co. v. Town of Calhan, No. 22-1190 (Oct. 13, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered the claim of the operator of a mobile home park who asserted a due process property right to instead use its property as a RV park. Here’s why the court