We’ve done vests and hats, and even the old reliable mug. And now we’re trying out lightweight fleecy jackets. That’s right folks: a limited, experimental, prototype piece of merch as depicted above, and below.
Continue Reading Latest inversecondemnation.com Swag
In an earlier post (“CAFED: Like We Said Before, “Inevitably Recurring” Flooding Is A Taking“), we covered the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent opinion in Alban v. United States, No. 23-1363 (Dec. 22, 2025), which held that the failure of the Corps of Engineers to properly operate two
It is time to bid farewell to the Year 2025, and our mind wanders back over the last 364 days in an attempt to ascribe meaning, a theme — a vibe — to the year that was.
Scientists tell us that this is just another trip around the Sun, but we humans like to
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
As we wrap up another year, it’s time to look ahead to the one event that always gets our eminent domain blood pumping: the annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference. Details, including faculty list, a complete agenda, and registration information is posted here.
Now in its 43rd year, this flagship gathering
Oral arguments in Cienega Gardens v. United States (Fed. Cir. No. 06-5051, Apr. 2, 2007), a case involving the application of the Penn Central ad-hoc test for regulatory takings, have been posted in two parts on the Federal Circuit’s web site: part 1 (68mb mp3), and part 2 (7mb mp3).
Also posted is the oral
In United States v. 191.07 Acres of Land (Martinek)(No. 04-35131, Apr. 4, 2007), the Ninth Circuit set out a good definition of “inverse condemnation” in the context of when a property owner has a right to a jury trial for federal takings.
Where the [condemnor] does not acquire privately owned land statutorily
An interesting decision from the Kansas federal district court, Mount St. Scholastica, Inc. v. City of Atchison, No. 06-2208-CM (Mar. 12, 2007), contains a land use trifecta: historic preservation, religious objections to a denial of a permit, and regulatory takings. (No link yet to opinion, which currently is only available via Westlaw; email me
Steven Greenhut’s opinion piece at the Orange County Register, “The powerless have always been targets of eminent domain,” makes some good points about eminent domain abuse, and the recently-argued Wilkie case (regarding the right to be free from government retailition for defending a Fifth Amendment right), and is worth reading:
“Cities use code