Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. [Disclosure: this is one of ours, so we won’t be commenting much at all.]
In Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering these Questions Presented:
1. Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to
This just in: in this Order, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari and agreed to review two cases which involve property and property rights.
First, in Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95, the Court will be considering these Questions Presented:
1. Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to
We have no idea what these cases might be about, or whether there is any substance behind the property owners’ objections, but these are headlines no condemnor could possibly like:
Here at inversecondemnation.com we also cover eminent domain, regulatory takings, land use, and environmental issues. We even cover election law when it strikes our fancy.
But here’s one that’s in our core competency: in Frick v. City of Salina, No. 101,355 (July 9, 2010) the Kansas Supreme Court held that property
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