Even though it is a trial court decision, the opinion in Township of Readington v. Solberg Aviation Co., No. HNT-L-486-06 (May 4, 2015), is well worth reading, because we think the judge gets the process for how courts evaluate claims of pretext correct.
We posted about this case a few years ago, after the
A long opinion (73 pages) from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in St. Bernard Parish Gov’t v. United States, No. 05-1119L (May 1. 2015), and it is worth reading in its entirety (there are even photos and maps embedded). But here’s the short version:
In Arkansas Game & Fish, the United States
Remember Dunn v. City of Milwaukie? That’s the case in which the Oregon Supreme Court reversed an inverse condemnation judgment in favor of a homeowner who had sewage back up into her house after the city “hydrocleaned” the sewer system, because she had not shown that the government had “acquisitory intent.”
The court, however
If you have plans to be in Wisconsin or environs in June, the Wisconsin chapter of the Appraisal Institute is putting on its 12th annual Condemnation Appraisal Symposium at the Marquette Law School on Wednesday, June 3, 2015.
One of the featured speakers is Mike Berger on “Current National Eminent Domain Issues,” and there will
We were all ready to write up the California Court of Appeal’s latest opinion about our favorite subtopic — the recovery of attorneys’ fees in eminent domain actions — when our colleagues at the California Eminent Domain Report beat us to it (“Court Clarifies Rules for Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees in Eminent Domain Actions
While we put the finishing touches on our full write-up of last week’s oral arguments in Horne v. U.S.D.A., No. 14-275 (we posted our initial thoughts after attending the Court’s session here), here are other summaries of the arguments:
We’re at a conference with the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law in Philadelphia (talking about eminent domain, public use, just comp, and Horne, inter alia), so we haven’t had the time to read this opinion — issued just a few minutes ago — in detail. But it’s a case we’ve been
In Town of Matthews v. Wright, No. COA14-943 (Apr. 21, 2015), the North Carolina Court of Appeals invalidated a taking, the stated purpose of which was to make a portion of a private road into a public street.
A taking to open a private road to the public? That sure does sound like a
Compare these two reports, filed just over a month apart, about California’s “high speed” rail system, now underway in the Central Valley:
We were in the neighborhood, so decided to drop in on today’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Horne v. U.S.D.A., No. 14-275, the case about the taking of California raisins.
The arguments ended a few minutes ago, and here’s our initial thoughts: