Yesterday, we were able to attend the Ninth Circuit oral arguments in a case which we posted on last month, Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. 12-17749.
In that case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the complaint filed by the owner of a wine country
If you are a “public agency staff, an appraiser, or a right-of-way consultant” (or, we presume, a lawyer) in California, check this out: a free half-day seminar on eminent domain issues in Costa Mesa on Thursday, March 5, 2015, presented by the Nossaman law firm, the guys who produce the California Eminent Domain
Owners of taxi medallions in Boston thought that they had some kind of special relationship with the city, perhaps understandably so. After all, taxi medallions are tough to get, are expensive, require the owner to comply with stringent regulations, and are the only commercial vehicles which can pick up passengers on the street (in other
Here’s the recently-filed amici brief of the National Federation of Independent Business and the NFIB Small Business Legal Center, which urges the Texas Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals’ Memorandum Opinion in City of Dallas v. Highway 205 Farms, Ltd., No. 05-13-00951-DV (July 22, 2014).
This case raises a jurisdictional issue that
Here are the links from our opening sessions this morning:
Here are the cases which I spoke about this morning at the 2015 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation conference:
Beach cases from Hawaii. The South gets gator law opinions. Vermont, snow law.
To this list of “local flavor” cases, add Belle Terre Ranch, Inc. v. Wilson, No. A137217 (Jan. 13, 2015), an opinion by a California Court of Appeal resolving a boundary dispute between a Northern California winery and the owner a
The Nevada Supreme Court’s opinion in Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegas, No. 15-03100 (Jan. 29, 2015) was the second time the court had issued a published ruling in the case, the first being Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegas, 181 P.3d 670 (Nev. 2008), in which
Here’s one with a somewhat unusual twist: the condemnee objecting to the taking by a public utility district was the state.
In Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Okanogan Cnty. v. State of Washington, No. 88949-0 (Jan. 29, 2015), the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the power of the county utility district to take an
