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
As we noted last week, the expanding costs of the Honolulu Rail project has forced Honolulu’s mayor to ask whether construction should be delayed or stopped entirely, short of its planned terminus at Ala Moana shopping center. “Middle Street” became the new rail watchword, even though stopping it there would omit — temporarily or
A land use diversion, to take you into the weekend. As land users know, the vested rights and zoning estoppel doctrines are all about timing. When did the government gave the green light” (however that is defined in your jurisdiction), what did the property owner do after that, and when did the government decide “hey, wait
As readers know, from time to time, we undertake what might be called “eminent domain tourism” — visiting the sites of famous and infamous cases when we’re in the neighborhood. Hadacheck, Kaiser Aetna, Nollan, Dolan, and PruneYard, for example.
Perhaps the best illustration of the “holdout” comes from Seattle (see
A very good crowd for today’s Oregon Eminent Domain Conference in Portland.
Here are the links to the cases and other materials that we spoke about today in our session “Inverse Condemnation and Regulatory Takings – Issues and Trends.”
Our thanks to Planning Chairs Jill Geleneau and Paul Sundermier for putting together a great
As we head into the weekend, one more reminder about two worthwhile eventss being staged next week:
The plaintiffs in FLCT, Ltd. v. City of Frisco, No. 02-14-00335-CV (May 26, 2016), owned two adjoining parcels in the Dallas-Ft Worth area at the southeast corner what could be a very busy (and therefore profitable) intersection of two parkways. After checking with the city that the restriction in the Commercial zoning which prohibited
The dramatic moment of the day during last Thursday’s California Supreme Court oral arguments in City of Perris v. Stamper, No. S213468 (which we previewed here: “Cal Supreme Court Oral Argument Preview: In Just Comp Trial, Does Jury Determine Reasonable Probability Of Exaction?“), occurred during the rebuttal arguments by the city’s lawyer. The case
Tomorrow morning, Thursday, May 26, 2016, starting at 9:00 a.m., the California Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in an eminent domain case that sits at the intersection of jury determinations of just compensation, and the Nollan/Dolan unconstitutional conditions issue.
Here is the link to the argument live stream.
The court