Here are the links from this morning's session on "Regulatory Takings Update," unfortunately not able to be delivered by our usual Saturday stalwart Michael Berger. I served as a poor substitute -- hope you don't mind -- but we are expecting you back next year in Nashville, Mike.
Speaking of which, this morning we also announced the 2020 venue for the 37th Annual Conference: Music City U.S.A., Nashville, Tennessee, January 23-25, 2020, at the Hilton Nashville Downtown. That's right, Nashvegas, baby! Check this out for some of the interesting things to do in that town (other than the nation's best eminent domain and takings CLE, that is). Please plan on joining us.
Here are the cases that are not in the written materials which Mike prepared, but which I discussed. And some others we didn't have time to get to in the live session:
- Where is the U.S. Supreme Court going on Williamson County's "state procedures" requirement? The aftershocks of the (re)argument in Knick v. Township of Scott. Are they finally comparing oranges to oranges (or still comparing them to tangerines)?
- The Ninth Circuit concludes that an inverse condemnation claim which has not been reduced to judgment is "merely a monetary claim" and is of no special constitutional moment, allowing a California inverse claim to be discharged in the City of Stockton's municipal bankruptcy.
- Lawprof Donald Kochan's article on whether we should rename the "Takings" Clause the "Keepings" Clause.
- Leone v. County of Maui: under Lucas's deprivation of economically beneficial use standard, does the fact that property which has no present legal use due to the County's regulations but nonetheless retains some value, mean that the property owner has no takings claim? The Hawaii Supreme Court said yes, and SCOTUS denied cert. But the issue is far from resolved.
- California Supreme Court to decide whether the Landgate standard (which looks a lot like the Agins "substantially advance" test jettisoned under the Fifth Amendment by Lingle) remains good regulatory takings law in California.
- The Ninth Circuit concludes that a state does not have total control over defining "property," and that some aspects of property are so fundamental, they are beyond the ability of the state to define out of existence.
- Ordinance Banning Industrial Mineral Mining Not A Regulatory Taking - But What About Palazzolo?
- Direct vs. indirect takings: the fuzzy line between tort and takings in the St. Bernard Parish (MRGO) case.
- More on California's unique inverse condemnation doctrine, as applied to utilities in wildfire cases.
- Fed Cir: Feds Claiming Ownership Of Property And Killing The Market Isn't A Physical Taking, The Statute Of Quia Emptores Notwithstanding.
- No "Love" for takings from the Federal Circuit. The Love Terminal Partners case.
If you were not able to join us in-person on on the web for the 2019 Conference, please hold the dates for 2020 in Nashville. Our program is growing in size and quality every year, with new speakers, topics, and registrants.
Yes, we talked Knick. With memes.
