Blog Authors

Latest from Inverse Condemnation

Iin North Mill Street, LLC v. City of Aspen, No. 20-1130 (July 27, 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a claim that the city’s denial of a rezoning application to allow residential development effected a taking was not ripe because the city’s process also allows a property owner to ask the city to allow site-specific development even if not in conformity with the current zoning, and the plaintiff…
Programming note: as we noted here, we’ve recently moved our email subscribers to a new service. If you are already subscribed to our email updates you should not need to do anything, except look for the emails coming from Feedblitz, not Feedburner. If you want to sign up for email updates anew, go here. If you experience technical issues, or receive duplicate email notifications, please let me know. Now back to your…
Heads up, property rights law nerds: looking at a career in public interest law? Here’s your chance for a one-year gig as a Constitutional Law Fellow at Pacific Legal Foundation. You will be a “PLF Fellow,” a one-year position for law-school graduates. You will be added to litigation teams in on-going cases, receive hands-on legal-research and legal-writing training, and study the Classical Liberal principles that guide our work. You will also be encouraged and…
Talk amongst yourselves. We’ve had our say, so in this post — the sixth and final post in a series of deeper dives about June’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid , No. 20-107 (June 23, 2021) — we’re linking to what others are saying about the case. Here are all of the posts in our Cedar Point series: Part I: SCOTUS’s Strawberry Letter 23 To Property Rights Part II: Common
A note for those of you who subscribe to the blog for email updates and notifications. Our longstanding email feed distributor, Feedburner (by Google) has announced that it is spinning down, and will no longer provide subscriptions and updates to blogs by email. As a consequence, as of today, Friday, July 23, 201, we’ve migrated our email subscribers to Feedblitz. For those of you who already receive email updates, you should not need to…
In this post — the fifth and penultimate post in a series of deeper dives that we’re posting about June’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, No. 20-107 (June 23, 2021) — we’ll be trying to take some educated guesses about what the decision means for the future. Part I: SCOTUS’s Strawberry Letter 23 To Property Rights Part II: Common Sense (Keep Out) And Common Law (The Right To Exclude)
Here’s one we’re now following, thanks to a heads-up from a northern colleague. The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal in a case involving what Canadian law calls “de facto expropriation” (what we’d call “regulatory takings”). Before you review the Application for Leave to Appeal by the property owner, and the responsive memorandum for the government, recall that even though Canada’s approach to “takings” is not a constitutional question, but nonetheless like…
The State of New York needed a strip of the owner’s property for a “greenway” for walkers and bikers. The State and the owner agreed that if the owner believed that the advance payment of $300k was not enough, it could ask the Court of Claims for more. But they also agreed that if that court concluded the amount for the taking was less than advance payment, the owner would owe the State the difference,…
We’re not going to pretend that we can actually read what the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Administración de Terrenos de Puerto Rico v. Ponce Bayland Enterprises, Inc., No. CC-2019-212 (June 29, 2021) says. It’s in Spanish and we don’t know Spanish. Wish we did, truly. But hey, that’s what Google Translate is for, right? And if that service can be believed, here’s what the summary of the case roughs out to:…
What do you think about these facts in RLR Investments, LLC v. City of Pigeon Forge, No. 20-6375 (July 13, 2021), a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on what we might charitably call an obscure legal doctrine (Rooker–Feldman)? City wanted some of RLR’s property to build a walkway and replacement parking for RLR’s parking that the walkway would displace. Eminent domain ensued. RLR objected to the take:…