Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.
In City of Oberlin v. FERC, No. 20-1492 (July 8, 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held FERC adequately explained why, in granting a certificate of public convenience, it relied in part on evidence that some of the natural gas
Check this out: our friend and colleague, eminent domain lawyer Stephen J. Clarke is the new Jeopardy! champion.
And it wasn’t just a plain-old win for Steve. It was an exciting, come-from-behind triumph, based (no doubt) on his careful, strategic thinking and thoughtful play (this is chess, not checkers!). Just like his eminent
In Witman v. City of Billings, No. DA 20-0609 (July 5, 2022), the Montana Supreme Court rejected an inverse condemnation damaging claim after a grease clog in city sewers resulted in 1000 gallons of raw sewage flooding the Witman home. Ugh.
Despite rules that limit what is supposed to go into sewage systems, people
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following from when the takings case was rejected by the Court of Federal Claims, and the dismissal affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Yes, this is the “bump stock” takings case, and the Federal Circuit decision has now triggered a cert petition.
You remember that
By now, you know that the 19th Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference is set for September 29-30, 2022, at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia (register here – space is limited – fee ranges from free to $195 – a bargain!). And you know that our colleague Jim Burling is this
No smoking in Hatu
A short one from the U.S. District Court in Utah, but worth reading because it highlights one of those unresolved issues: the remedy for a “takings” claim.
Now, you’ve heard the Supreme Court describe just compensation as the “default” remedy for regulatory takings and inverse claims. But it isn’t the only
Check it out: a new article from the San Diego Law Review that’s worth reading. Here’s the Abstract:
This Comment explores potential Fifth Amendment challenges to COVID-19 eviction restrictions. Part II introduces California and federal COVID-19 eviction laws and lays out an organizational framework for analysis. Part III provides background on relevant regulatory takings jurisprudence.
It’s not quite “Yes Virginia…” but here is our annual Independence Day missive on the legal angle on the Declaration. This may have special significance as the nation is in the process of reexamining many of our assumptions and history. But though the Founders may have been flawed individuals, there’s really no question
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.
Now before you get all worked up about the Texas Supreme Court agreeing that the private company proposing to build a bullet train between Dallas and Houston may exercise the sovereign power of eminent domain (see Miles v. Texas Central RR & Infrastructure, Inc.
The owners of the Hollymead Town Center (Route 29, LLC) located, perhaps not surprisingly along U.S. Route 29 in Albemarle County outside of Charlottesville, needed the County to rezone a portion of the property.
Part of the rezone was something called a “conditional proffer” that required a cash donation of $50,000 “[w]ithin thirty days after