takings

You are no doubt familiar with the “property is a bundle of sticks” metaphor. For nearly a century, private property rights have been described as a “bundle of sticks,” with each stick representing a distinct right associated with the ownership of property: the right to possess it, to exclude others, to use, alienate, and develop it, and so on. The metaphor is common parlance — but is it truly a good way to actually capture what this thing called “private property” means?
Recently, Pacific Legal Foundation and the George Mason Law Review gathered judges, scholars, practitioners, and students at the Law School for a symposium to try to shed some light on that question…
Continue Reading “Unpacking Private Property’s Bundle of Sticks” Symposium Report

There’s a cautionary tale in the Florida District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Key Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Envt’l Protection, No. 1D2025-0660 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2026), which held that a regulatory takings claim was barred by the statute of limitations. There, the owner applied to develop land in and once it received the final “no” from the State, sued for a taking. All good, right? After all, your claim isn’t ripe until the reviewing authority has given its final answer on whether or how the property might be used.
Continue Reading Between Scylla And Charybdis: Your Lucas Claim May Be Too Early … Or Too Late

Here’s one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit joining the growing number of cases holding that government cannot satisfy due process with gestures that look like notice, but aren’t reasonably calculated to actually notify anyone. In Warner v. Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts, No. 24-10748 (Aug. 17, 2026), the court concluded that although the ordinance which deems abandoned property forfeited if the government provides notice isn’t facially unconstitutional, the Clerk nonetheless failed to take step reasonably calculated to provide actual notice (the notices were published in a limited-circulation Spanish language newspaper), and thus any claim by the government to funds on deposit (but apparently abandoned) would be a taking.
Continue Reading CA11: County Can’t Treat Court Registry Funds As “Abandoned” Property When It Knows Notice Never Reached Owner

Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been on for a long time: whether government actions taken under the police power are categorically exempt from providing just compensation when those activities take or damage private property. In Blue 42 Organics, LLC v. Georgia Dep’t of Public Safety, No. S25G1493 (Sep. 9, 2026), the Georgia Supreme Court held no, and that the State was not categorically immune from an inverse condemnation claim just because the government damaged the property in the course of an apparently valid exercise of the police power.
Continue Reading Georgia: Invoking “Police Power” Doesn’t Automatically Evade Just Compensation When Govt Damages Private Property

In Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchos Water, No. S289391 (Aug. 24, 2026), the California Supreme Court held that the usual uber-deferential standard of review in eminent domain cases to the condemnor’s claim that the taking is necessary does not apply where a government is taking a private utility company to operate itself. …
Continue Reading California Supreme Court: Guess What? Eminent Domain Statutes Mean What They Say

It’s that time of the year again. Fall’s-a-coming, and that means that in a few days, we’re back at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia to teach two courses: Eminent Domain and Property Rights (W&M is one of the few law schools in the country that offer a course in eminent domain, just compensation, and takings) -and Land Use Controls (an especially hot topic at the moment).
Continue Reading Back To School For Dirt Law @ William & Mary, Season 9

Worth reading, if only for its somewhat odd logic is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in BBLI Edison, LLC v. City of Chicago, No. 25-1713 (July 22, 2026), where the court upheld, against a takings challenge, a city requirement that anyone who acquires a rental property via foreclosure must either enter into new one-year leases with any existing tenant who desires to remain, or pay $10,600 if a tenant chooses to vacate. …
Continue Reading CA7: Takings Claim “has something to it,” But City Requiring Owner Pay Relocation Fee To Tenants Is A “Clunky” Form Of Rent Control, So You Lose

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. (And an issue we’ve been following for a while.) [Disclosure: our shop filed an amicus brief in that case in favor of the property owner.] In Township of Jackson v. Getzel Bee, LLC, No. 090404 (N.J. July 20, 2026), the New Jersey Supreme Court invalidated a taking where the stated public use was to acquire property for open space, but the condemned properties were not going be be so used, but instead would be used to swap with another private owner, so its property could be used for open space. …
Continue Reading New Jersey: No Taking To Swap Land With Someone Else