Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following (because it is a product of our shop: we represent the property owners/plaintiffs).
In this Order, the Florida Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction to review the Third District Court of Appeals en banc opinion in Shands v. City of Marathon. So that decision
If you were creating a moot court problem, what topic would you pick? You’d want a question that is a hot topic. Unresolved by the Supreme Court. Controversial, interesting, and complex.
Well, we have just the issue for you: our favorite topic, takings.
That appears to be what the powers-that-be behind Harvard Law School’s moot
Check out a newly-published law review article by lawprof Timothy Harris, “The Contracts Clause Can be Enforced via Section 1983, Period: The Nonexistent Circuit Court ‘Split’,” 78 SMU L. Rev. Forum 106 (2025).
The article delves into the issue of whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the cause of action to bring
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. [Disclosure: this is one of ours, so we won’t be commenting much at all.]
In Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering these Questions Presented:
1. Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to
A quick one from the South Dakota Supreme Court. But it is well worth your time.
In City of Sioux Falls v. Johnson Properties, LLC, No. 30945 (Nov. 19, 2025), the court upheld a trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to a property owner in an eminent domain action. The final amount of compensation
Check out this new (ish) cert petition which asks whether the “final decision” ripeness rule that currently governs regulatory takings cases is also applicable when the right alleged to have been violated is procedural due process.
The petition sets out how the lower federal courts have dealt with the question:
This case presents an important
In Grand v. City of University Heights, No. 24-3876 (Nov. 13, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a complaint alleging a RLUIPA claim and others was not ripe because they are “land use” claims subject to Williamson County‘s final decision requirement.
A neighbor was “displeased” that Grand
Tomorrow, November 22, 2025 is the 99th anniversary of the day in 1926 when the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (Nov. 22, 1926).
You know this one (and can you call yourself a dirt lawyer if you don’t?).
Check this out: a significant and important decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in an issue we’ve been following.
In Alford v. Walton County, No. 2021-13999 (Nov. 17, 2025), the unanimous panel concluded that the county’s Co-19 restrictions, which closed all beaches (public and private) in the county
In State ex rel. Boggs v. City of Cleveland, No. 2025-Ohio-5094 (Nov. 13, 2025), the Ohio Supreme Court held that the City of Cleveland could be liable for inversely condemning land, even though that land is not in the City of Cleveland.
The city claimed that in order to be liable for inverse condemnation