Tomorrow, Thursday, October 6, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. at Aliiolani Hale, the Hawaii Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case we’ve been following (we filed an amicus brief in the case, supporting the property owner on the first Question Presented), County of Kauai v. Hanalei River Holdings, Ltd., No. SCWC-14-0000828.
The
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following, and which earlier resulted in a very good decision from the North Carolina Supreme Court.
In Kirby v. North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation, No 56PA14-2 (June 10, 2016), the N.C. Supreme Court held that the “Map Act,” a statute by which the DOT designated vast
We’ve teased some of the details on the 2017 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation and Condemnation 101 Conference, to be held at the Westin San Diego, January 26-28, 2017, but here are the details you’ve been waiting for.
This is the “big one,” our annual 3-day festival of all things eminent domain
There’s a lot of pages in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion (and two concurring opinions) in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. J-34A-2016 (Sep. 28, 2016), and the good stuff from the headline starts on page 78. But to understand the case, you need a bit of background.
Pennsylvania has been one of
During. Good crowd.
Before. Note the power strips on the tables.
Well played, Caesar’s, well played.
To supplement your written materials, here are the decisions and other materials which we spoke about this morning at the CLE International Eminent Domain seminar:
This one is kind of Colorado specific, but there are lessons here for the rest of us.
In Colorado Dep’t of Transportation v. Amerco Real Estate Co., No. 16SA75 (Sep. 26, 2016), the Colorado Supreme Court prohibited the DOT from taking Amerco’s land (leased to U-Haul) for a highway project because the transportation
The speed of the internet: we were all set to post our thoughts on the opinion of the Court of Appeals of Indiana in Bellwether Properties, LLC v. Duke Energy Indiana, LLC, No. 53A-04-1511-CR-1880 (Sep. 13, 2016), when the Indiana Lawyer beat us to the punch with “COA: Discovery rule applies in inverse
We like property rights. We really do. And here is a new law review article on property rights. But the jury’s still out whether this will be useful to us (or you) in the practice of law, because, well, the article is about animals having property rights.
You read that right. Property rights. For animals.
Today is Constitution Day, even though every day really is Constitution Day, no?
In that vein, here is what is probably our favorite work of modern art, a piece titled “Preamble,” which hangs in the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington, D.C. Yes, those are real license plates, and when read together
This one reminds us of a recent decision by the Texas Court of Appeals, because the Mississippi Supreme Court, like the Texas court, concluded that an inverse condemnation plaintiff lacked standing because it didn’t own the property at the time of the taking. Russell Real Property Services, LLC v. Mississippi, No. 2015-CA-01306-SCT (Sep. 15
