Here’s one you don’t want to miss. Lawprof Shelley Ross Saxer has published “Forfeiture Takings, Police Power, and Necessity Destruction,” 80 U. Miami L. Rev. 147 (2025).
Here’s the Abstract:
Civil forfeiture laws allow law enforcement to seize property when there is probable cause it has been used or possessed in violation of
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following (because it is a product of our shop: we represent the property owners/plaintiffs).
In this Order, the Florida Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction to review the Third District Court of Appeals en banc opinion in Shands v. City of Marathon. So that decision
Check this out: a significant and important decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in an issue we’ve been following.
In Alford v. Walton County, No. 2021-13999 (Nov. 17, 2025), the unanimous panel concluded that the county’s Co-19 restrictions, which closed all beaches (public and private) in the county
There’s not a lot of new territory forged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Pena v. City of Los Angeles, No. 24-2422 (Nov. 4, 2025), holding that the city could not be liable for a taking after SWAT officers severely damaged a home in the course of
This past week we were busy with the 22d Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference at the William and Mary Law School.
Here’s the text of the remarks which I prepared for the session on “Public Safety, Private Property, and Just Compensation.” Note: because of time, I truncated what I planned on saying and kept
Here’s a cert petition in a case we’ve been following.
This is a water fight in California, and it asks a fundamental question: is the right to beneficial use of water a property right? The Federal Circuit held no, the federal government possesses that right, not these owners.
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Are Water Rights “Property?”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
If you can figure out the syntax of this post’s headline, you’ve just figured out the rationale of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in E-L Enterprises, Inc v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, No. 2008AP921 (July 2, 2010). In that case, the court held that the removal of groundwater was not a compensable taking because the
New Jersey Eminent Domain blog posts a good summary of the Robbins v. Wilkie case currently pending in the US Supreme Court:
The critical issue for Robbins and other property owners asserting their 5th amendment rights is whether they can do so without fear of retaliation by government officials. Many property owners affected by eminent