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
Check out this AP photo and the accompanying story “China’s ‘stubborn nail’ stands firm” —
Reminds me of the Warner Bros. classic “Homeless Hare,” where Bugs Bunny objects to a developer’s efforts to evict him from his hole: “Hey ya big gorilla, didn’t you ever hear about the sanctity of the American home