Here’s the cert petition, docketed yesterday, in a case we’ve been following on legislatively-imposed permit exactions, an issue in dire need of Supreme Court resolution.
Here’s the Question Presented:
A City of West Hollywood ordinance requires that builders of a proposed 11-unit condominium pay a $540,393.28 “affordable housing fee” to subsidize the construction of low-cost housing elsewhere
No, this isn’t the Supreme Court, it’s Graceland,
purchased by Elvis in March 1957.
(We’re just checking whether you are paying attention.)
Appellate oral argument, as they say, is supposed to be a “conversation” between the bench and counsel. But the overall impression we were left with after reviewing the transcript of yesterday’s Supreme Court
For those of you, like us, who were not able to be in DC for today’s oral arguments in the “larger parcel” or “denominator” case, Murr v. Wisconsin (see our preview of the arguments here), here’s the transcript, hot off the press.
As takings mavens are no doubt already aware, next Monday, the 8-Justice Supreme Court will hear arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, the regulatory takings case which asks whether the county can avoid application of the Lucas wipeout standard on one parcel by taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiffs also own the
Here’s what we’re reading this Monday:
Drone technology — those pesky little flying machines that invade your privacy — has opened up a new dimension that previously was available only to real-life pilots and those with airplanes or helicopters.
As with most new things, there’s bound to be rules, even if those rules may be playing catch-up to reality. On Monday
Here’s an article, recently published by the Urban Lawyer (the law review produced by our ABA section, the Section of State and Local Government Law), with our take on the most interesting and important eminent domain and takings rulings from the past year.
Many of the cases discussed will be familiar to regular
This year, the University of Hawaii Law Review is devoting one of its issues to a symposium on issues related to the sharing economy.
On Friday, February 17, 2017, the law review is sponsoring a series of presentations from 9:00 am – 4:30 pm at the law school (lunch included if you RSVP ahead
We’ve spent a good portion of the last two weeks at conferences discussing the regulatory takings case now pending at the U.S. Supreme Court, Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214.
The biggest question most had was why the Court had not scheduled oral arguments. There was a lot of speculation and gossip about the Chief
Our final day was anchored, as usual, by Pacific Legal Foundation’s Jim Burling, and property rights guru and advocate Michael Berger. Jim was his usual riveting self, and Michael supplied the insight to cases which only he can.
In case you are wondering, the above is the view from the dais, and no, I didn’t
