Here’s the final brochure for the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Conference, set for January 26-28, 2017, in San Diego.
Early registration gets you a discount (code CY009MK), as does multiple registrations from one office, so now’s the time to commit to joining us for our annual gathering (the 34th Annual) of
We were getting ready to dig into the California Court of Appeal’s opinion in 616 Croft Ave., LLC v. City of West Hollywood, No. B266660 (Sep. 23, 2016), when our ABA State and Local Government Law colleague Bryan Wenter wrote up the case on his firm’s land use blog, saving us the trouble.
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following, and which earlier resulted in a very good decision from the North Carolina Supreme Court.
In Kirby v. North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation, No 56PA14-2 (June 10, 2016), the N.C. Supreme Court held that the “Map Act,” a statute by which the DOT designated vast
We’ve teased some of the details on the 2017 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation and Condemnation 101 Conference, to be held at the Westin San Diego, January 26-28, 2017, but here are the details you’ve been waiting for.
This is the “big one,” our annual 3-day festival of all things eminent domain
There’s a lot of pages in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion (and two concurring opinions) in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. J-34A-2016 (Sep. 28, 2016), and the good stuff from the headline starts on page 78. But to understand the case, you need a bit of background.
Pennsylvania has been one of
Denials of rehearing and motions for en banc review from a state intermediate appellate court generally do not catch our attention. But Ganson v. City of Marathon, No. 3D12-777 (Sep. 14, 2016) is the exception to that rule.
This is a long-running regulatory takings dispute between property owners in the Florida Keys — who
This just in, in a case we’ve been following closely.
In City of Perris v. Stemper, No. S2133468 (Aug. 15, 2016), the California Supreme Court held that the judge, and not the jury, determines the validity of a dedication which a condemnor asserts it would impose to get the condemned property “for free”
One for you land users. We’re not going to analyze the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ published opinion in Robert D. Ferris Trust v. Planning Comm’n of the County of Kauai, No. CAAP-15-0000581 (Aug. 9, 2016) in too much detail, because our Damon Key colleagues Greg Kugle and Chris Leong represent the prevailing appellant.
To state a claim for inverse condemnation in Nevada, the property owner must allege that the government was “substantially involved” in activities that caused the taking of the property.
In Fritz v. Washoe County, No. 67660 (Aug. 4, 2016), the Nevada Supreme Court addressed what constitutes substantial involvement. Does it require actual physical “involvement”
We’re experiencing the madness that is the ABA Annual Meeting — this time in San Francisco — hanging with colleagues from the State and Local Government Law Section (where we’re slated to be the Chair-Elect this year), and at the Council of Appellate Lawyers. These meetings are a lot of … meetings .. but there’s
