In this Order, the Supreme Court has granted the cert petition in the case we’ve been following about the anti-eminent domain sign in Norfolk, Virginia. The Court vacated the Fourth Circuit judgment and sent the case back down for consideration in light of the recent ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015, the American Planning Association is putting on the 2015 Planning Law Review, a program highlighting the most important and topical cases decided by the courts recently. Here’s the program description:
Planning feels the impact of decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, federal district courts, and state courts. How will
In all of today’s excitement about the Court’s opinions in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275, the “raisin takings” case which we posted about earlier, we almost lost sight of the other property rights decision issued by the Court, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, No.13-1175 (June 22, 2015).
The case did
Update: here’s more Horne talk, in addition to our own initial thoughts in the above video and this post (“Magna Raisins: 8-1 SCOTUS Says There’s A Taking, But Not All Agree On Remedy“):
Here’s the podcast of our recent talk to the American Bar Association’s Section of State and Local Government Law about the (then) upcoming decision in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275. Transcript here, if you’d prefer to read it.
This is a preview of the decision. But since we made some predictions
As we predicted, the Supreme Court today held that personal property — here, raisins — is property protected from uncompensated acquisition, and that the USDA’s New Deal regulations pursuant to which the Department fined the Hornes for not turning over to the government a massive percentage of their yearly crop without compensation, is a
Here’s one that isn’t about land use, but should be of interest to Hawaii land users, since so much of what we do is tied up in the Administrative Procedures Act.
Hawaii’s APA can be a trap for the unwary: if you run to court to challenge what you believe is the agency’s appealable action, you
Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, No. F069145 (June 3, 2015), is one especially for you Californians, addressing the somewhat unusual process under state law for challenging a land use action by local government which is claimed to take property.
Under the California Supreme Court’s decision in Hensler v. City of Glendale, 876 P.2d
Last week, the Hawaii Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sierra Club v. Castle and Cooke Homes Hawaii, Inc., No. SCAP-13-0000765, a case involving a challenge by the usual suspects to a State Land Use Commission “boundary amendment” (aka state “rezoning” to those of you not familiar with Hawaii’s top-heavy state land use planning
The powers-that-be planned on building a major freeway interchange, part of which was going to be on the property owned by Jefferson Street Ventures. Problem was, Jefferson Street also had plans for its property — a shopping center — and when it came time for it to apply to the City of Indio for permits