In Witherspoon v. Ince, No. 24-6194 (Oct. 9, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a property owner who alleged that Oklahoma’s system of private takings — where the state authorizes private parties to use eminent domain to take what looks like an easement by necessity over a neighbor’s
The latest cert petition from Michael Berger, this time involving procedural due process and takings.
Here are the Questions Presented:
The City of Dana Point “red tagged” Petitioner’s motel and then had a receiver appointed to oversee its rehabilitation without ever providing notice of the hearing. Thereafter, it set the property for a
A short one (unpublished) from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a Tyler taking case (an issue that seems like it is on a lot of courts’ minds right now).
In Wayside Church v. Van Buren County, No. 24-1598 (Oct. 6, 2025), the court affirmed the district court’s certification of
In a case we’ve been following for what seems like forever, the Hawaii Supreme Court has issued an opinion in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. SCWC-19-0000776 (Sep. 17, 2025), holding that littoral property owners are owed nothing for the temporary regulatory taking of small portions of accreted beach.
Continue Reading Hawaii Supreme Court: Beachfront Property Is Worthless
This just in: in this Order, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari and agreed to review two cases which involve property and property rights.
First, in Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95, the Court will be considering these Questions Presented:
1. Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to
Here’s a cert petition in a case we’ve been following.
This is a water fight in California, and it asks a fundamental question: is the right to beneficial use of water a property right? The Federal Circuit held no, the federal government possesses that right, not these owners.
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Are Water Rights “Property?”
Just a few weeks ago, we were celebrating our 19th birthday, and our 5,000th post.
Then came the news that our long-time hosting service, Typepad, was shutting down on September 30, 2025, and that if we did not migrate the blog to a new host, it was going dark…permanently.
We have now found a new home: an old friend to legal blogs, LexBlog.
This is a behind-the-scenes fix, so from your side, you shouldn’t see any big changes. You can still find us on the web right here at inversecondemnation.com. For readers who follow along by email, you should continue to see posts showing up in your inbox via Feedblitz or now, LexBlog. Anyone still use RSS? If so, same.
Our content will also remain the same: takings, eminent domain, and property rights goodness.
Continue Reading Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You DownHere’s the cert petition which we filed recently. We won’t be saying much about this one because it is one of ours.
But here’s the Question Presented, which pretty much says it all:
The City of Lathrup Village, Michigan, prohibits leasing commercial property without a license. But the City will not issue a license unless
Be sure to check out the opinion of the Texas Court of Appeals (Fourteenth District) in Jones v. Port Freeport, No. 14-23-00948 (Sep. 18, 2025).
This is a challenge to the Port’s attempt to take property in an historic African-American community, with the stated purpose of the taking being “expansion of the Port Facilities” and “the development of business industries.” Slip op. at 3. The owners objected, asserting that there’s gotta be a plan. Or at least a better plan than that.
Continue Reading Tex App: No Plan, No Public Use, No Eminent Domain: “I’m from the [Port], and I’m here [for a public use]” Is Not Enough
Here’s a case that isn’t about takings and our usual fare, but is nonetheless an example of how dirt law can be fascinating.
In Hilo Bay Marina, LLC v. State of Hawaii, No. SCAP-23-0000310 (Sep. 12, 2025), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that a restriction in a land patent issued by the State of Hawaii’s predecessor-in-interest (the Territory of Hawaii) in 1922, that limited the uses of the land to “Church purposes only” cannot be enforced under the state constitution’s establishment clause.
Continue Reading Restriction In Gov’t-Granted Deed Limiting Uses To “Church purposes” Can’t Be Enforced