We’re not suggesting you read the entire majority and dissenting opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Landcastle Acquisition Corp. v. Renasant Bank, No. 20-13735 (Jan. 12, 2023). After all, together they comprise 126 pages (yikes!). And the case isn’t our usual fare, but “arises out of the insolvency
Guest Post – Kady Valois, “Divide (Or Not) and Conquer: Florida’s Test For The Regulatory Takings Larger Parcel”
Today’s post is by our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague Kady Valois, writing about last week’s opinion by the Florida District Court of Appeal (Second District) in Lake Lincoln, LLC v. County of Manatee, No. 2D21-2826 (Jan. 13, 2023),
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Divide and Conquer (Or Not): Florida’s Test
For The Regulatory Takings Larger Parcel
by
(Nearly) Last Call: There’s Still Time To Join Us For The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, Austin
We really want you there…
One (nearly) last reminder that there’s still time to register for your space at the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 1-4, 2023, in Austin. In the past several years, we have sold out due to the conference room capacity and the conference hotel block.
Federal Court: Seattle Facilitating Downtown Takeover Takings Claim Is Going To Trial
Saturday in the park…I think it was the Fourth of July
Here’s the latest on a case we’ve been following, about the blocking off of a neighborhood in Seattle and making it a no-go zone for those whom the takeoverers wanted to keep out.
Yes, the CHOP/CHAZ case is still a thing. [And before we
Lucky Friday The Thirteenth: SCOTUS Grants New Takings And Excessive Fines Case
Here at inversecondemnation.com, we were all set to call it a week and take a break from posting until Monday.
But SCOTUS had other ideas.
In this Order issued today, it agreed to review Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, a case and an issue we’ve been following closely.
The Questions
CA4: Property Owner Isn’t “Vested” So No Takings Property
When we first read the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in PEM Entities, LLC v. County of Franklin, No. 21-1317 (Jan. 5, 2023), our reaction was one of skepticism. After all, at first blush, the court seemed to have concluded that in order to possess a property right protected by the Takings Clause, the
Mahon At 100: “A Landmark Centennial From a Land Marked By the Past” (Sam Spiegelman, Yale J. Reg.)
We continue our series on the 100th anniversary of the mother lode of takings case, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (Dec. 11, 1922), with this short essay recently published in the “Notice & Comment” feature of the Yale Journal on Regulation.
From The Mahon Property: Your Invitiation To The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference, Austin (Feb 1-4)
Neither snow nor …
Details, including registration here. Or download the print brochure.
In the recent past, we’ve sold out, so don’t miss out. We recently opened up a new room block, so there’s still time.
Come, join your colleagues for 3+ days of the best eminent domain and related programming. And, of
NY Appellate Division: A Hospital Parking Lot Isn’t An Authorized Reason To Take
Unsurprisingly there isn’t a lot there in the majority opinion in Bowers Dev. LLC v. Oneida Cnty. Indus, Dev. Agency, No. 2022-00744 (Dec. 23, 2022) (this is from the New York courts after all, which don’t seem to write long opinions), but we’re posting it so you can compare the majority with the dissent.
Wyoming: When You Settle An Eminent Domain Fight By Waiving All Future Claims, You Can’t Take Advantage Of A Reclaim Statute
Here’s one that’s holding over from 2022, but we wanted to make sure to post because it’s a good reminder that when you settle a case, you settle the case.
Wyoming is one of those jurisdictions that has one of those “I want it back” provisions, where if property is not actually used for X