For you land-users out there, be sure to check your inboxes for the link to the latest issue of The Urban Lawyer, the law review published by my section of the ABA, the Section of State and Local Government Law. With articles on privacy and public real estate records, neighborhood opposition to zoning changes
Our upcoming American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference in Charleston, South Carolina has SOLD OUT our in-person registrations.
We will have a record attendance (with over 100 first-time attendees) and the conference hotel has informed us that we can fit no more people in the meeting rooms. We cannot remember this
Here’s the first post-Murr cert petition (as far as we can tell), in a case we’ve been following. As we wrote in “The First Post-Murr Case? Fourth Circuit: No Taking Because Anti-Development Merger Regulations Actually Make Property Developable,” the Fourth Circuit concluded:
[T]he County’s regulations were run-of-the-mill zoning/land use ordinances, and thus
What to make of this? A blog aimed at condemning authorities, with advice on how to avoid a claim for precondemnation damages. Okay, nothing wrong with that. Condemnors deserve good legal counsel as much as other parties. Indeed, having inexperienced counsel for the condemnor often makes resolving cases harder than it should be
Two items from land use guru Lawprof Daniel Mandelker:
Back in October, the William and Mary Law School awarded U. Hawaii lawprof David Callies the Brigham-Kanner Prize at a two-day conference in Williamsburg. Our summary of the conference is posted here.
We spoke at the conference, at the first panel entitled “The Future of Land Regulation and a Tribute to David Callies,”
Here’s a case about the denominator in a regulatory takings case from July 2017, just after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Murr v. Wisconsin. We somehow missed the opinion when it was issued, but since we think it must be the first case which attempted to apply the Murr majority’s multi-factor test
…this is might be it: Lampkins Crossing, LLC v. Williamson County, No. 3:17-cv-00906 (Nov. 14, 2017), in which the District Court dismissed substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection claims for not being ripe under Williamson County‘s “final decision” prong. The Williamson County case decided on Williamson County grounds.
Now, we’re
The Georgia Supreme Court’s analysis in Diversified Holdings, LLP v. City of Suwanee, No. S17A1140 (Nov. 2, 2017) reminded us of that old trope from logic, “no true Scotsman.”
According to a completely reliable source (Wikipedia):
No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a
Update: our colleague Bryan Wenter has his take on one of the cases denied review here (“U.S. Supreme Court Again Declines to Consider Important Property Rights Issue Regarding the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine“) (“Because the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court leans ideologically conservative by any traditional measure and