In Sterling Hotels,LLC v. McKay, No. 22-1345 (June 22, 2023) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered whether a hotel could sue a state elevator inspector who barred the hotel from operating its elevators for reasons the state’s Elevator Safety Board had not approved. As a result, the hotel couldn’t rent
Want To Find And Litigate The Next SCOTUS Landmark Property Rights Case? Come, Join Us
Ever thought to yourself when reading a Supreme Court property rights cert petition or opinion (or three), “I wish I could do that“?
That was me a couple of years ago.
And I found out. I joined the nation’s premiere property rights courtroom lawyers and advocates, Pacific Legal Foundation.
Sad Birthday Wishes To Penn Central – Some Things Don’t Get Better With Age
Thanks to lawprof Josh Blackman for the reminder that our un-favorite case, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), turned 44 today.
If you know, you know.
Time has not treated the opinion well. Practitioners, judges, and legal scholars across the spectrum have called the three-factor Penn Central test
Oklahoma: Private Necessity Takings Are OK, And Don’t Require A Public Use Or Purpose
Before you get too excited by the headline and think this is a Kelo issue, a word of caution: this short one from the Oklahoma Supreme Court is on a really niche topic: private condemnations that permit the private owner of property to institute a private-benefit taking to force a neighbor to sell an interest
Iowa Supreme Court Can’t Decide Much Of Anything In Power To Take Challenge
At first, the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion in Juckette v. Iowa Utilities Board, No. 21-1788 (June 16, 2023) looks like a promising read. The issue — is a utility expanding its use of an express road easement to install electric lines a taking? — is one that we’ve been following.
But by the
CA5 Makes Short Work Argument That Asserting A Rational Basis For A Short-Term Rental Ban Is Enough To Secure Pleadings Dismissal Of Arbitrary And Capricious Challenge
In this very short (but apparently published) opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that it was not right to dismiss a claim on the pleadings and that factual development is warranted, even where the complaint alleges that a municipal land use ordinance is arbitrary and capricious, and the city claims it has a
They’re Here, Ready For Shipment: Your Inversecondemnation.com Fleecy Swag Vests (Just In Time For Summer!)
As we noted here (“Would You Like A Fleecy Inversecondemnation.com Swag Vest? If So, Here’s How To Get Yours“), we have produced the first post-prototype batch of swag attire.
After several delays (“supply chain” they said, but that’s probably what everyone hears nowadays), we have received the production order from the manufacturer and
Texas Supreme Court: We Want To Resolve Whether Short-Term Renting Property A Natural Right, Just Not In This Case
In this order, the Texas Supreme Court declined to review a case we’ve been following, in which the court of appeals held that Grapevine’s total ban on short-term renting of property — banning even owners who had been doing so for a while — might be a taking. The court held that even
New Takings Ripeness Cert Petition (Ours): Knowing The Permissible Uses “to a reasonable degree of certainty” Is All You Need For A Claim To Be Ripe
Here’s the cert petition, filed last week, in a case we’ve posted about. See here (Ninth Circuit arguments) and here (en banc petition).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a takings claim because (it held) the claim isn’t ripe. The government hasn’t made up its mind, and just might allow the owners to
CAFED: Temporary But Recurring Flooding Is A Categorical Taking, Not Penn-Central-Plus
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.
In Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, No. 21-1949 (June 16, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that temporary, but recurring government-caused flooding was correctly treated by the Court of Federal Claims as a categorical per se taking, and