After the Supreme Court’s decision in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 14-275 (U.S. June 22, 2015), we were waiting for this shoe to drop. And now it has.
In “Raisin ruling seen as a lifeline for endangered species,” Environment & Energy writes, “[a] Supreme Court ruling that struck down an odd Depression-era raisin
A quick one from the Michigan Court of Appeals. Murphy-Dubay v. Dep’t of Licensising and Regulatory Affairs, No. 321380 (Aug. 18, 2015) involved the claims of Mr. Murphy-Dubay, who attended 2 years at a Caribbean medical school, followed by 2 years of clinical rotations in Canada. He returned to Michigan, and passed “Step 3”
A piece on the humor site Cracked, “4 Thriving Communities That Rich People Destroyed On Purpose,” tells an old story: modest-but-decent places “redeveloped” into (1) Dodger Stadium, (2) Brazil’s Olympic venues; (3) the Salton Sea, and (4) Central Park, respectively.
(We note that the segment on the Salton Sea is the
Enviro Wars Episode IV: A New Court
You may have heard that the Hawaii Legislature, after an intensive years-long effort by environmental groups, recently created a new court with specialized jurisdiction that could have a big impact on how property and business owners are treated by Hawaii’s courts.
Known as the “Environmental Court,” this new
Takings nerd alert: we posted about this case late last year, when the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that two separate parcels owned by the same family must be treated as a single unit for purposes of determining whether there’s been a taking. Eventually, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review.
So here’s the next step, the
Here’s a short (approx. 10 minute) summary of the recent decision by the California Supreme Court in California Building Industry Ass’n v. City of San Jose, No. S212072 (June 15, 2015).
In that case, the court upheld the city’s “inclusionary housing” requirement against a Nollan–Dolan–Koontz challenge. The court concluded the ordinance
The headline of this post shouldn’t be that surprising, especially when the the property owner purchased the land already subject to a floodplain designation, and those regulations effectively prohibited development.
But the two twists in the South Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion in Columbia Venture, LLC v. Richland County, No. 27563 (Aug. 12, 2015), were
Here’s a short one from the Court of Appeals of Texas, Eighth District, involving how well a regulatory takings claim needs to be pleaded in a complaint.
In County of El Paso v. Navar, No 08-14-00250-CV (Aug. 7, 2015), the court held that a pro se plaintiff who alleged, among other things, that the
Our colleague William Wade, in addition to being an economist, is a prolific author on the topic we find fascinating, takings. He looks at the issues with an economists’ perspective, and we’ve found his articles very helpful. We’ve even posted a few over the years:
