Some interesting items have crossed my desk on Friday and Saturday:
- From the Grand Theft: Property blog, Jim Mattson posts his thoughts about Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 67 Cal. App. 4th 263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), the case in which a California Court of Appeals held that a municipality's development moratorium was a Lucas taking.
- A California Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Rental Housing Ass'n of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland, No. A114855 (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 27, 2009), striking down in part the city's rent control ordinance because it is preempted by state law.
- From the New York Zoning and Municipal Law blog comes a summary and analysis of the recent oral arguments in the latest phase of the Atlantic Yards eminent domain fight from Brooklyn.
- More on AmeriSource v. United States, No. 08-497 (cert. petition filed Oct. 15, 2008) from the law bloggers at Volokh Conspiracy here (follow the links to earlier analysis of the issue). We posted the briefs in the case and our thoughts about the issues here.
- Also from the VC, see Supreme Court to Hear Potentially Important Property Rights Case, about SCOTUS agreeing to review the following question:
In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a State or local government to provide a post-seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the "speedy trial" test employed in United States v $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)?
- The International Municipal Lawyers Association's Local Government blog posts a summary and analysis of the decision the U.S. Supreme Court issued earlier this week about whether the Free Speech Clause requires a city to allow a religious group to place a permanent religious monument in a public park. Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, No. 07-665 (Feb. 25, 2009).