Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been following for a long time: must a property owner first try to change the law which is claimed to work a taking before bringing a takings claim in court? In other words, in order for the government to have made a “final decision” for Williamson County purposes does the legislature have to decline to amend the very law being challenged?
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Does A Property Owner Need To Seek A Legislative Change To Ripen A Takings Claim?
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. The owners of the trademark of the famous baseball player Roberto Clemente asserted a physical takings claim after the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico used a likeness of Clemente on commemorative license plates, among other things. The First Circuit rejected the takings claim…
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Is Trademark Property Subject To The Same Takings Rules As Other Private Property?
Not a lot that’s earthshaking from the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Sablan v. Commonwealth Utilities Corp., No. 2024-SCC-0023 (June 20, 2026), but we’re posting it because its holding — an entity lacking the power of eminent domain may nonetheless be liable for inverse condemnation — is important because it rightly concludes that the focus of the calculus in these cases is on the infringement of the property owner’s rights, not the technicalities of the government’s power.
Continue Reading “The constitutional duty to provide just compensation arises from the act of taking private property for public use, not the formal possession of eminent domain authority.” Entity Lacking Eminent Domain Power Can Be Liable For Taking Property
Yes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Banks v. Charter Twp. of Bloomfield, No. 25-1833 (Apr. 28, 2026) is unpublished, and we usually don’t cover unpublished opinions. But we put aside our usual reluctance to discuss unpublished work because the decision raises an important point: are the rules in “regulatory” takings only applicable when the government has adopted a regulation?
Continue Reading CA6: To Be A Regulatory Taking, There Must Be A Regulation
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following for quite a while. In Ohio ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, LLC v. Mertz, No. 2026-Ohio-1487 (Apr. 29, 2026), the Ohio Supreme Court held that the operator of injection wells lacked an investment-backed expectation to operate such wells because it did business in a highly-regulated environment, and it understood at the time it purchased the property the risk it would be further regulated. Slip op. at 17-18.
Continue Reading Ohio: Temporarily Shutting Down Injection Wells After Earthquakes Is Not A Penn Central Taking
Check this out. A new cert petition on an issue we think is a good one. Let’s just cut to the chase (you can read the petition for the background). Here are the Questions Presented: Whether an approved vesting tentative map which conferred a statutory vested right to finalize a subdivision upon substantial compliance with the conditions of approval is property protected by the Takings Clause?
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Is A Vested Permit A Separate “Stick” Of Private Property?
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
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