If you are scheduled to be in or near New York City on Friday, August 11, 2017, please consider attending one or both of the following events:
The Connecticut Appeals Court’s opinion in Stones Trail, LLC v. Town of Weston, No. AC 38078 (July 18, 2017), does not offer a lot in terms of substance — it holds that a property owner’s regulatory takings claim based on the Town’s approval of what the owner thought was a subdivision was not ripe
Load this one up for your morning drive, or workout: the Federalist Society’s podcast on “Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council at 25.” Featuring Professor Eric Claeys, Professor Michael Wolf, and Pacific Legal Foundation’s James Burling. Well worth your time.
Here’s the description:
This spring marks the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme
A couple of weeks ago, we noted that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Murr v. Wisconsin would no doubt be a boon for law review editors. To avoid shirking our duty, we’ve spent the interim doing some writing, adding a drop to the flood. First draft done, posted on SSRN here.
Emphasis
One last reminder: next Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 2:00 pm Eastern, is “The U.S. Supreme Court and Property Rights: The ‘Larger Parcel” Issue and the Future of Regulatory Takings,” ALI-CLE’s first look at the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on the “larger parcel” or denominator issue in regulatory takings cases where
Check it out: Clint Schumacher’s latest Eminent Domain Podcast, with guest Professor Ilya Somin on Murr v. Wisconsin.
We’ll just leave this right here. Dr. Zaius could not be reached for comment.
Update 7/24/2017: Here is our contribution to the article scene.
—————————————–
Someone (I think it was Professor Ilya Somin [update: confirmed – he noted it here]) recently noted that if nothing else, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Murr v. Wisconsin will be a boon for law professors looking for something to fill
A very short one from the Connecticut Appellate Court, Santos v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. AC37281 (July 11, 2017) in a Penn Central-style takings challenge to local land use regulations. We’re going to set out the facts, then let you guess who prevailed.
The plaintiff purchased an unimproved parcel of land in Stratford
Now that the dust has settled somewhat, for your weekend reading, here are your links to some of the vast amount of commentary which the Murr v. Wisconsin decision has thus far generated:
