The statutory standards for an original jurisiction action in the Hawaii Supreme Court challenging the outcome of an election are pretty rigorous. You’ve got to show acts or omissions that “could cause a difference in the election results.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-172. In other words, you must show that if you are right about
A “Savage Appraisal” Indeed: DOT Argues That Its Statement Of Valuation Is A Confidential Settlement Offer
Here’s the Virginia Department of Transportation’s answering brief in the case which we posted about last week, Ramsey v. Commissioner of Highways, now pending before the Virginia Supreme Court.
Under Virginia’s condemnation procedures, as a prerequisite to a court exercising jurisdiction over an eminent domain action, a state condemning agency must as an
New Article: “Private Takings” (via Fed Reserve Bank of Chicago)
If you, like us, went to law school to avoid things like this:
then perhaps this recently-published paper is not going to be your cup of tea.
But seriously, folks, this one might be worth your time, even if you are numbers-challenged, because it is a look at the “holdout” issue from the standpoint of
Arkansas App: One Flood Not Enough For Inverse Condemnation Liability (But What About Arkansas Game & Fish?)
In Finch v. Carroll Cnty., No. CV-14-251 (Oct. 22, 2014), the local county judge asked the property owners to donate gravel. That’s gravel, not “gavel,” for those of you, like us, who were wondering. (We have no idea why, or whether this is common. But there it is.)
But in removing the “several
Ill App: First Condemnation Was Not Res Judicata To Second
The first time the government tried to take the property, it screwed up: the ordinance authorizing the taking failed to state that the property was necessary, and failed to adequately describe the property to be taken. The trial court dismissed the case.
As we all know, in most cases that means the government just reboots
Mich App: Denial Of Shale Oil Drill Permits Not A Taking
Here’s one of the decisions we’ve been meaning to post for a while.
In Schmude Oil Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Envt’l Quality, No. 313475 (July 1, 2014), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that there was no wipeout per se taking, nor was there a Penn Central taking, when the DEQ refused to
Texas (Reluctantly) Finds No Regulatory Takings Claim
The Texas Supreme Court is generally pretty good about property rights. See this opinion, this one, and this one, for examples.
So when the legal analysis in one of its regulatory takings/inverse condemnation opinions has the following language — especially in a case where a municipal government has treated the plaintiffs/property owners very
Maine: On Second Thought, We Were Right When We Said That Beach Property Is Not Subject To Special Rules
Back in February, we blogged about an opinion from the Maine Supreme Court involving littoral property (that’s beachfront property to all you non-lawyers and Navy people), in which the court concluded that those who were asserting a prescriptive easement over the plaintiffs’ beachfront property– the Town and several neighbors — had not rebutted Maine’s
Federal Court Challenge To NJ’s Beach Replenishment Plan
Here’s the Verified Complaint in a case recently filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey:
Plaintiffs Jenkinson’s Pavilion, a corporation of the State of New Jersey and Jenkinson’s South, Inc., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, (collectively “Plaintiffs”), bring this action, inter alia, (a) for a declaration as a matter of
Programming Note: Get Ready For The 2014 Year-End Opinion Dump
Get ready. With the end of the year nearly upon us, and our “For The Blog” folder brimming with opinions and items that we just haven’t had time to post, in the next couple of weeks we’ll be putting up a lot of these 2014 cases so we can start the new year afresh.
This