Thanks to a colleague for cluing us in to the first case on the docket today, that brings to mind ferae naturae, Pierson v. Post, and (of course) takings.
In Britton v. Keller, No. 1:19-cv-01113 (D. N.M. Apr. 16, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico held that
Back in December — only a few months ago, yet it seems like another world away — we attended oral arguments in Raleigh in a case we’ve been following for a long time, about North Carolina’s “Map Act.”
This case is the follow up (after remand) of the N.C. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Kirby
On one hand, there’s a lot going on in the Maryland Court of Appeal’s opinion in Maryland Reclamation Assoc, Inc. v. Harford County, No. 52 (Apr. 24, 2020), a case we’ve been following. The opinion is a whopping 81 pages, and details facts that go back decades. On the other hand, the opinion
This morning, the Supreme Court of Virginia heard oral arguments (by telephone) in a case we’ve been following.
This is an inverse case that asks whether less than a total loss of access to a parcel could be taking — did the owner plead enough to put the issue to a jury — and
Here’s an article, just published in the American Planning Association’s monthly magazine, Planning (read the entire April issue here), summarizing the Ninth Circuit’s latest foray into regulatory takings, Bridge Aina Lea, LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm’n, No. 18-15738 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2020).
Here’s what we’re reading today, spurred by the headlines swirling around all of us. Mostly cases about the role of the courts when government curtails liberty or property rights under its police or emergency powers. We’ve now seen the first lawsuit claiming that an order to shut down businesses is a due process violation and
As long-time readers know, we often kvetch about the way many courts ignore the Palazzolo rule that simply because someone obtains property subject to preexisting restrictions on use does not preclude them automatically from raising takings claims. See here, here, here, and here, for example. More about the Palazzolo case here, including
Torromeo Industries owned a 12-acre parcel zoned “Industrial.” Two buildings — one a home, the other a 4,000 square foot industrial building — were on the land. Sole access to the property way by a private driveway along the 149 foot frontage of the parcel. Industrial zoning has a minimum lot size of 80,000 square
Here’s the cert petition we’ve been eagerly awaiting in a case we’ve been following about Seattle’s rewriting of the traditional lessor-lessee relationship.
The petition arose out of facial takings and due process challenges to Seattle’s “first in time” rule for residential leasing. The city adopted an ordinance requiring owners to rent to the first tenant
This just in. In Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 17-17504 (Mar. 17, 2020), a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a regulatory takings claim which the District Court threw out for not being ripe under Williamson County‘s “state procedures”
