just compensation

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following for what seems like forever (and yes, it is one of ours, so we won’t be commenting). This morning the U.S. Supreme Court without comment denied the City of Marathon, Florida’s cert petition, which asked the Court to review an en banc opinion of the Florida District Court of Appeals which held that the City’s downzoning of Shands Key effected a Lucas taking as a deprivation of economically beneficial uses, notwithstanding that the property could be sold to a third party who could donate it to the city in return for some very watered-down transferable development rights (TDRs).
Continue Reading Good News: Lucas Cert Petition Denied – TDRs Go Only To Just Comp, Not Takings

Here’s the latest (a development we predicted) in a case we’ve been following. In this Order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit confirmed that it will be rehearing the Fulton case en banc. As you recall, last year a 2-1 panel of the court held that an owner whose property has been taken does not need Congress to have created a cause of action, and may directly sue for just compensation under the constitution. That’s right, the “self-executing just compensation” issue that the Supreme Court dodged in DeVillier.
Continue Reading En Banc CA11 To Consider Self-Executing Just Compensation

Skynet knows we’re in Milwaukee. So it flashes this story on our screen: remember that eminent domain case our of Milwaukee you participated in 16 years ago? (Skynet is scary and has a long memory.) Yes, we do. A just compensation issue. “Undivided fee” rule nonsense. Oh yes, we remember. …
Continue Reading Eminent Domain: Owner “Lost its case and lost all of its money”

Happy Birthday to Hugo Grotius, author of the treatise “De Jure Belli et Pacis” (1625) — perhaps fittingly books about war and peace — which first used the phrase “eminent domain” to describe the sovereign power to forcibly acquire private property for public use and upon provision of compensation.
Continue Reading Happy 442d Birthday To Hugo Grotius, Who Coined The Term “Eminent Domain”

Here’s Pacific Legal Foundation’s motion asking the Virginia Supreme Court to allow us to file a brief amicus curiae which urges the court to grant a discretionary appeal and review this Petition for Appeal by a Norfolk, Virginia homeowner who, according to the trial court, suffered a taking but was prevented from presenting all evidence of just compensation, including the “residue damage” required in partial takings by the Virginia Constitution. …
Continue Reading Virginia Supreme Court Amicus: There’s A Difference Between Constitutional “Damagings” And Severance (Residue) Damages In Takings Just Compensation

Check out this recently-published article by colleague Robert (Bob) Grace, MAI, “Assessing Change in Market Value of Rural Real Property Post-Wildfire in the Great Plains” in the latest issue of the Appraisal Journal. …
Continue Reading New Article: Bob Grace, “Assessing Change in Market Value of Rural Real Property Post-Wildfire in the Great Plains” (Appraisal Journal)

Courtrooms are places for serious business. After all, people’s lives, businesses, property, and past and futures are at stake. It’s right that the court, the lawyers, and the public take what goes on there seriously. But judges and lawyers are also human, so it should surprise no one that moments of levity and humor can creep in.
Continue Reading Lighter Moments In Yesterday’s SCOTUS Takings Arguments

Here is the transcript of the oral arguments held earlier today in Pung v. Isabella County. [And before we get further, a disclosure: this case is one of ours as the above courthouse steps photo shows.]…
Continue Reading Transcript And Audio From Today’s SCOTUS Takings And Excessive Fine Arguments (Pung v. Isabella County)

You know the drill: DOT takes property and pays compensation for that as part of the project. But the project also resulted in elimination of what was the “shortest indirect access route” to the subject property from the public road, for which the DOT did not pay compensation. Question: is the owner who loses such access entitled to compensation?
Continue Reading SD: Closure Of Intersection And Loss Of Access Is Not Compensable Special Injury