You already know that Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Paul Stevens has announced his retirement from the Court. On that august occasion, we look back on his “takings” opinions.
One commentator, lawprof Continue Reading Justice Stevens: No Friend Of Property Owners
A fascinating case is now pending in Hawaii’s Intermediate Court of Appeals involving the nature of “Torrens” title and, in a broader sense, the nature of property rights themselves.
Hawaii has had a dual system of land registration. One is your run-of-the-mill system of registering deeds (what we creatively call “Regular System”). The other is “Land Court” registration, a statutory Torrens scheme of title registration where the State guarantees indefeasible title to the rights and interests reflected in the register. Land Court registration insures that interests which are not reflected on title do not exist. Indeed, persons who are wrongfully deprived of land or their interest through registration or the act or omission of the registrar are entitled to be paid by an indemnity fund, and the State’s guarantee operates against all claims, including claims by the State itself.
As background (for those of you who, like me, weren’t paying
What we’re reading today:
In Cottage Emporium, Inc. v. Broadway Arts Center, L.L.C., No. A-0048-97T2 (Apr. 16, 2010) (per curiam), the New Jersey Superior Court (Appellate Division) struck down the city of Long Branch, New Jersey’s declaration that properties located in an area of the city known as the “Broadway Corridor” are blighted. The court held that the city must do more than recite the statutory criteria for blight and then assert the properties met the criteria.
The city determined the properties were in “poor” condition using only “cosmetic and superficial” criteria, and by visually inspecting the buildings’ exteriors. Nor did the city attempt “even in small part to establish what Gallenthin [Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007)] requires, namely a degree of ‘deterioration or stagnation that negatively affects surrounding areas’ by promoting conditions that can develop into blight.” Slip op. at 36.
Although a city’s
To paraphrase comedian Jeff Foxworthy, if you understand the title of this post…you might be a regulatory takings lawyer.
And when you hear the terms “Rooker–Feldman” and “San Remo,” you know you are knee deep in the often-bizarre procedural maze where a regulatory takings claim in federal court may be too early (ripeness), too late (preclusion and full faith and credit), or completely barred (Rooker–Feldman).
The Rooker–Feldman doctrine posits that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of state supreme courts, where it is alleged that the state court’s judgment itself violates the plaintiff’s federal rights. San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005) is the Supreme Court’s most recent “ripeness” decision, affirming that property owners do not have to bring their federal takings claims
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens recently announced that he’s retiring. In property law circles, he is most recently remembered for authoring the majority opinion in Kelo.
Here’s our collection of Stevens-related takings issues
Continue Reading Justice Stevens, Takings, Kelo, And Williamson County
I’ve finally had a chance to peruse the recently-published book Takings International: A Comparative Perspective on Land Use Regulations and Compensation Rights (ABA Section of State and Local Government Law 2010; $95 regular price; $75 for SLG members).
Takings International is about how 13 jurisdictions worldwide treat what we in the U.S. call “regulatory takings.” For those of us who have a keen interest in this area of law, this book is a goldmine of information about how the rest of the world deals with the issue. For those who may not be quite as interested, it is still a fascinating survey of how others treats the modern regulatory state’s impact on private property.
The book is headlined by Professor Rachelle Alterman (Technion-Israel Institute of Technology), and contains chapters authored by other experts on regulatory takings. It is divided up into several sections. In Part I, Professor Alterman provides an
Don’t feel like reading all 74 pages of the majority and concurring opinions in the Turtle Bay/Kuilima EIS case (Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 28602 (Apr. 8, 2010))? You’re in luck — here’s a summary.
[Disclosure: although I did not participate in this case, two of my Damon Key colleagues did. They represented a party in the circuit court and filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court. Consequently, I will not be adding commentary, just summarizing.]
For a summary of the arguments of the parties, first check out our oral argument preview part I and part II, then check out our live blog of the oral arguments.
Here are the briefs of the parties and amici, both at the cert stage, and in the Intermediate Court of Appeals:
Thank goodness for small things. At least book collectors in Los Angeles do not need to get “secondhand book dealer” permit from the government simply because they buy used books.
In Hopp v. City of Los Angeles, No. B215265 (decided Mar. 9, 2010; published Apr. 6, 2010), the California Court of Appeal (Second District) held that a person who collects books as a hobby and does not sell them, is not required to get a permit from the city because he is not “engaging in, conducting, managing or otherwise carrying on the business of buying, selling, exchanging or otherwise dealing in secondhand books and magaziines, secondhand text books, or secondhand educational materials.” Slip op. at 4 (quoting L.A. , Cal., Mun. Code §103.310(a),(b)).
The court rejected the city’s argument that a collector who either buys or sells books, even for personal enjoyment, is a “book dealer.” It held that
Continue Reading Cal Ct App Gives LA The Business: A Book Buff Is Not A “Book Dealer”
This just in: the Hawaii Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the Turtle Bay/Kuilima EIS case (Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu). In short, the court held that a supplemental environmental impact statement is required when a project’s context changes, even if the project itself has not. The court’s opinion, authored by Chief Justice Moon, is here. We blogged about this case and the ICA’s decision here.
More, after a chance to read the 76 pages of the majority and concurring opinions.Continue Reading Turtle Bay/Kuilima Supplemental EIS Case: Is A Change In “Context,” But Not The Project, Enough To Trigger Supplemental EIS?
