Looking for some property and takings scholarly reading while you cool your heels at home? Well, the William and Mary Law Review has recently published no less than three worthy pieces, all available for download.
Join us starting tomorrow, Tuesday, May 12, 2020 for the 34th Land Use Institute. Originally scheduled for April in Tampa, we obviously couldn’t do tha, so we did the next best thing — moved this venerable course online. The Planning Chairs (Frank Schnidman and Dean Patricia Salkin) have assembled the usual hot topics session
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. In Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 17-17504 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2020), a 2-1 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals held that a federal takings case was not ripe because the plaintiffs had not sought an exemption (“variance”) from the regulation.
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
