This just in, in a case we’ve been following closely.
In City of Perris v. Stemper, No. S2133468 (Aug. 15, 2016), the California Supreme Court held that the judge, and not the jury, determines the validity of a dedication which a condemnor asserts it would impose to get the condemned property “for free”
As we mentioned a few weeks ago, the final agenda for the 2016 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference has been released. Here’s the complete conference brochure, which has all the details, including registration information.
This is the annual program, sponsored by the William and Mary Law School, in which there’s a day-long discussion of
Forgive me for the length of this post, but I’m writing while the thoughts are fresh, and before I get back to the real world. Those of you who may have emailed me in the past week, or who saw this post know that I’ve been occupied with the American Bar Association Annual Meeting in
A short one from the Georgia Court of Appeals.
In Summerour v. City of Marietta, No. A16A0640 (July 8, 2016), the city condemned a grocery store for a recreation center. After multiple attempts to contact the property owner and multiple offers of compensation, the city and the owner finally began the negotiation process, during
One for you land users. We’re not going to analyze the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ published opinion in Robert D. Ferris Trust v. Planning Comm’n of the County of Kauai, No. CAAP-15-0000581 (Aug. 9, 2016) in too much detail, because our Damon Key colleagues Greg Kugle and Chris Leong represent the prevailing appellant.
To state a claim for inverse condemnation in Nevada, the property owner must allege that the government was “substantially involved” in activities that caused the taking of the property.
In Fritz v. Washoe County, No. 67660 (Aug. 4, 2016), the Nevada Supreme Court addressed what constitutes substantial involvement. Does it require actual physical “involvement”
We’re experiencing the madness that is the ABA Annual Meeting — this time in San Francisco — hanging with colleagues from the State and Local Government Law Section (where we’re slated to be the Chair-Elect this year), and at the Council of Appellate Lawyers. These meetings are a lot of … meetings .. but there’s
The issue resolved by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Zweber v. Credit River Township, No. A14-0893 (July 27, 2016) was one that land use lawyers deal with constantly: when an administrative agency is alleged to have violated someone’s constitutional rights, what procedural route must the legal challenge take — is the plaintiff required to
In City of Missoula v Mountain Water Co., No. DA-15-0365 (Aug. 2, 2016), a sharply divided Montana Supreme Court upheld the City of Missoula’s exercise of eminent domain to take a private water system. We’ve been following the case (see our oral argument notes here). The court’s majority concluded that the
“Petitioner owns the fee title to property known as the Ballona Lagoon, a narrow body of water connected to Marina del Rey, a manmade harbor located in a part of the city of Los Angeles called Venice. Venice is located on the Pacific Ocean between the Los Angeles International Airport and the city