If you missed the three-and-a-half hours (!) of this morning’s teleconferenced oral argument of the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a case we’ve been following (along with a related case), well, you are in luck. There are multiple ways to listen in. You can stream it from YouTube
Maryland Resurrects California’s Agins Rule: Owner Must Seek Agency Variance, Which If Granted, Means “owner no longer has a takings claim and the right to alternative relief in the form of just compensation”
On one hand, there’s a lot going on in the Maryland Court of Appeal’s opinion in Maryland Reclamation Assoc, Inc. v. Harford County, No. 52 (Apr. 24, 2020), a case we’ve been following. The opinion is a whopping 81 pages, and details facts that go back decades. On the other hand, the opinion
New SCOTUS Amicus Brief Highlights Govt’s “Categorical Duty” To Compensate, Even Without Substantial Damage To Remainder
CHALLENGE: find the “damage” on the Loretto building
Here’s the amicus brief filed today by Pacific Legal Foundation that urges the Supreme Court to grant our cert petition in a case that asks:
To constitute a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, must a physical invasion also destroy or substantially impair an owner’s economically
We’re All Ad Hoccers Now: SCOTUS Penn Centralizes The Clean Water Act (“From” Is Too Hard To Define, So Here’s A List Of Factors)
As any takings lawyer can tell you, ad hoc rules and non-exhaustive lists of “factors” a fact-finder considers can be seductive. After all, shouldn’t the outcome of a case turn on its particular facts? Who could argue with that?
The problem lies when those factors are applied in a way that seems more like one
Still Time To Join Us (Tomorrow): ALI-CLE Webinar – Strategies for Litigating Regulatory Taking Cases
There’s still time to join us tomorrow, Friday, April 24, 2020 at 2-3pm Eastern Time, they will be presenting “Strategies for Litigating Regulatory Taking Cases” in a webinar produced by ALI-CLE. Register here (multiple attendee discounts available).
At the recent ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference in Nashville, our colleagues
Takings Nerd Christmas: Fordham Urban Law Journal’s Knick Symposium (feat. “Sublimating Municipal Home Rules and Separation of Power in Knick v. Township of Scott”)
Lacking things to read during your shut-down? Well, we have the solution: the Fordham Urban Law Journal has devoted an entire issue to Knick and takings ripeness (“Taking Account: Procedure, Substance, and Stare Decisis in the Post-Knick World“).
Our article “Sublimating Municipal Home Rule and Separation of Powers in Knick v.
Fed Cir Bummer: Govt Bogarted None Of Your Kish, Slag, Or Scrap
In a case that uses terms that might reasonably lead you to think it was lifted from the script for the next stoner comedy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Gadsden Indus. Park, LLC v. United States, No. 18-2132 (Apr. 22, 2020), held that an owner of land on
Shades Of Takings In Both Of Yesterday’s SCOTUS Opinions
Like that old radio bit “Chicken Man” (“He’s everywhere! He’s everywhere!“), it looks like the robed ones down at 1 First Street NE are, like us, seeing takings lurking in cases where takings may not be the first thing on the menu.
For example, in yesterday’s opinions about whether the Sixth
A Clean Well-Pleaded Complaint: Latest Takings Challenge To Shut-Down Order
Here’s the latest complaint challenging a governmental business shut-down order. In this case, it is an order by the Michigan governor. We’ve seen similar lawsuits recently (see here, here and here, for example). So far, these complaints have have not met with receptive audiences. This one was tossed aside quickly. This one
New Cert Petition (Ours) Offers A Moment Of Zen: If The Government Makes The Final Decision But The Property Isn’t Yet Actually Injured, Must The Owner Sue For A Taking Now?
Here’s the cert petition that along with our colleague Steve Jakubowski we’re filing today in Campbell v. United States, No. 19-___, in which we ask the Court to review the Federal Circuit’s ruling that the plaintiffs in a Court of Federal Claims takings case missed the Tucker Act’s statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. §