A quick one (2 page, per curiam) from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to send you into the holiday.
In Devillier v. Texas, No. 21-40750 (Nov. 12, 2022), the court summarily concluded that “the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide
Here it is, the official agenda and program for the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 2-4, 2023 (with a special event the evening of Wednesday, February 1, 2023 to entice you to arrive early).
Here’s the brochure with the complete agenda, schedule, and faculty listing. But to tempt you,
Well, that was quick. As we noted here, we recently argued a case in the Ninth Circuit (October 20, 2022) about whether a regulatory takings claim is ripe.
Not long after we posted the argument recording, the Ninth Circuit panel issued a short memorandum opinion rejecting our arguments wholesale (November 1, 2022).
So earlier
Check it out: our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues Jim Burling, Jon Houghton, and Jeff McCoy, along with Jeremy Hopkins (Cranfill & Sumner, North Carolina), share with us the latest on property rights, Sackett, takings, the future of Penn Central, and the upcoming SCOTUS arguments in Wilkins v. United States (is
Yes, the granddaddy of all SCOTUS regulatory takings cases, from which we got such phrases as these was argued 100 years ago this day.
To “slow the spread” in the early days of the Co-19 thing, the City ordered businesses to shut down. But not Wal-Mart, liquor stores, or churches. Golden Glow, a tanning salon objected, and told anyone who would listen that it could operate without person-to-person contact. Sorry, no exceptions.
Federal lawsuit followed, alleging the claims you
Florida law makes it really difficult for municipalities to adopt rent controls. State statutes and the Florida Constitution erect all sorts of substantive and procedural hurdles that must be crossed. For example, a statute requires findings that any such measures are responding to an emergency, a “grave … menace to the general public,” and places
The County of El Dorado requires everyone seeking a building permit for new development to pay a fee to mitigate the additional traffic that the proposed development is predicted to cause. But the County doesn’t calculate the fee by actually looking at a proposed development and predicting what traffic impacts in may be responsible for.
Remember that First Circuit opinion from a few months back, which held – contrary to a prior 2-1 Ninth Circuit panel – that just compensation claims are not dischargeable in a governmental bankruptcy?
Well, the government recently filed a cert petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case and hold that there’s nothing
Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, No. 21-1849
As written up in the FedCircuitBlog (a must-follow for all you federal takings mavens):
It concerns the federal government’s liability for taking private property. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review the conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was
