Here’s what we are reading today, eminent domain with a slightly offbeat theme:
From the Ninth Circuit, a published opinion in a case challenging a Napa Valley city’s mobilehome rent control ordinance, Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. 12-17749 (Sep. 3, 2015). Here’s a complete summary of the issues in the case, along with the Ninth Circuit merits and amici briefs. We’ve been following it because
Here’s the latest in a case that we’ve been following, which was in both state and federal court, Bridge Aina Lea v. Land Use Comm’n.
The litigation is a series of two lawsuits that originated in state court in the Third Circuit (Big Island), one an original jurisdiction civil rights lawsuit, the other
Oral Arguments part I
Oral Arguments part II
Three points before we get to our more involved thoughts on last week’s oral arguments in what is known as the “Thirty Meter Telescope” case, Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Bd. of Land and Natural Resources, No. SCAP-14-0000873:
We have learned that the North Carolina Supreme Court has granted the State’s request to review Kirby v. North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation, No. COA14-184 (Feb. 17, 2015).
That’s the case in which the Court of Appeals not only held that the property owners’ claims were ripe, but that the Map Act — which gives
A piece on the humor site Cracked, “4 Thriving Communities That Rich People Destroyed On Purpose,” tells an old story: modest-but-decent places “redeveloped” into (1) Dodger Stadium, (2) Brazil’s Olympic venues; (3) the Salton Sea, and (4) Central Park, respectively.
(We note that the segment on the Salton Sea is the
Enviro Wars Episode IV: A New Court
You may have heard that the Hawaii Legislature, after an intensive years-long effort by environmental groups, recently created a new court with specialized jurisdiction that could have a big impact on how property and business owners are treated by Hawaii’s courts.
Known as the “Environmental Court,” this new
Takings nerd alert: we posted about this case late last year, when the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that two separate parcels owned by the same family must be treated as a single unit for purposes of determining whether there’s been a taking. Eventually, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review.
So here’s the next step, the
Here’s a short (approx. 10 minute) summary of the recent decision by the California Supreme Court in California Building Industry Ass’n v. City of San Jose, No. S212072 (June 15, 2015).
In that case, the court upheld the city’s “inclusionary housing” requirement against a Nollan–Dolan–Koontz challenge. The court concluded the ordinance
