R.S. Radford’s most-recent article, Knick and the Elephant in the Courtroom: Who Cares Least About Property Rights? in the latest issue of the Texas A&M Journal of Property Law, should be next on your to-read list.
Here’s the summary of the article:
Throughout the thirty-four-year history of Williamson County, one fact was taken for
What’s this, a court invalidating an attempted taking because it isn’t necessary? What gives, Appellate Court of Illinois?
Well, in City of West Chicago v. Pietrobon, No. 2-20-0174 (Apr. 28, 2021) (unpub.), the court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the taking of a strip of the owner’s property might qualify as a future
What’s up with that (sorta) snarky headline, you ask? After all, isn’t the PennEast v. New Jersey case, heard yesterday by the Supreme Court, a real honest-to-goodness eminent domain case about a pipeline?
Doesn’t the transcript show terms like “in rem,” “takings,” “eminent” and “eminent domain” were used a whole lot? Aren’t a lot of
That rail crossing in Chicago
We’ve noted before that gun cases have life of their own, often divorced from strict legal logic. Throw in takings, and you’ve got a recipe for a difficult challenge.
But add to the mix a Supreme Court überlawyer, and maybe your chances go up. Who knows for sure.
We post the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Ivanenko v. Yanykovich, No. 20-7033 (Apr. 23, 2021) more for its interesting fact pattern than the holding (which doesn’t tell us a lot about “takings” since is this is a case under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, but hey, it did ping our “eminent domain” radar).
Here’s the recently-filed cert petition in a case we’ve been following.
Rather than attempt to sum it up, we suggest you read the petition, especially the Questions Presented:
Montana Dakota Utility (hereinafter MDU), a private corporation, employed the power of eminent domain to procure an easement on Vern Behm’s farmland immediately along a pre-existing
Two very interesting law review articles (essays) by well-known property experts are now available in the Notre Dame Law Review:
This In Chambers Order recently issued by a federal district judge may just be the most unusual, flat-out wild judicial opinion we have ever read.
Citing the Gettysburg Address, Brown v. Board of Education, systemic racism (including eminent domain) systemic sexism, and a slew of newspaper articles, the Central District of California (without even
Under a Massachusetts statute, local redevelopment agencies have the power to respond to “decadent, substandard, and blighted open areas” either by creating an urban renewal project (redeveloping an area pursuant to a “detailed” and “comprehensive” plan; the statute expressly includes the power of eminent domain for urban renewal projects), or by a “demonstration” development (a
Like a lot of jurisdictions, Kentucky allows (or requires upon demand) the jury to view property being taken by eminent domain. In Kentucky, it’s a matter of statute, which requires the court to allow a jury view upon the demand of any party, unless “unusual or extreme circumstances” are present.
