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
It Was A Hundred Years Ago Today … Happy Argument Birthday, Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon
Yes, the granddaddy of all SCOTUS regulatory takings cases, from which we got such phrases as these was argued 100 years ago this day.
- “The general rule, at least, is that, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking.”
- “Government
Tanning Beds v. Liquor Stores – No Equal Protection, No Physical Take, No Lucas Take For Co-19 Biz Shutdown Order
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
County: We’re Short Of Housing, So Let’s Do Rent Control! Court: Not So Fast.
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
Whether $23K Traffic Fee Is Proportional To One Single-Family Home Is Beyond The Ken Of Judges
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.
New Cert Petition: Just Compensation Claims Can Be “Adjusted” (Eliminated Or Reduced) In Bankruptcy, Right?
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
CAFED Hears Arguments In Two Takings Cases
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
What’s “The State of Takings Law: 100 Years After Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon and One Year After Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid”? Incoherent (But Getting Better)
For the last week, the blog has been a bit idle. That hasn’t been because we’re slowing down, but was mostly the result of our blog platform being worked on behind-the-scenes, which knocked a lot of the hosted blogs offline, this one included. But things look good now, so here we are.
We were also
More On Federal Court Invalidating Honolulu’s 3-Month Minimum Rental Term
Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court invalidated Honolulu’s stretching of the minimum term for a residential rental from 30 days to three months, concluding that the ordinance likely violates the state Zoning Enabling Act, and also would be a taking if implemented. The court issued a preliminary injunction.
The lawyers repping the plaintiffs in
CA9 Takings Ripeness Oral Arguments: Must Property Owners Secure Govt’s Agreement That Property Is Subject To Challenged Regulations Before A Court Can Review?
October 20, 2022 was what one advocate noted was “land use day at the Ninth Circuit,” because three out of the four cases being argued in Courtroom 3 of the San Francisco courthouse were indeed land use — or perhaps more accurately, regulatory takings — cases.
Ours was one of those cases, Ralston v. San