September 2010

The littoral property owners who won a partial victory in the Hawaii appellate courts have filed this cert petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals which concluded that ownership of beachfront property includes only a partial right to accreted land. In Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, 122 Haw. 34, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009), the ICA held that held that “Act 73” (codifed here and here), the statute in which the legislature simply redefined accretion as public propertywas a taking, but accepted the State’s argument that Act 73 did not affect a taking of what it called “future” accretion, because the right is simply a contingent future interest.

In Act 73, the Hawaii Legislature changed over a century of common law and declared that title to shoreline land naturally accreted cannot…

Continue Reading Cert Petition In Hawaii Beach Takings Case: Is The Right To Accretion A “Property” Interest?

Last week, we filed an amicus brief in United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, No. 09-846, (cert. granted Apr. 19, 2010). Why is a case involving the Indian Tucker Act and the technicalities of the Court of Federal Claims’ subject matter jurisdiction showing up in the pages of this blog? In addition to being a fascinating case, a claimed limitation on the CFC’s jurisdiction is of interest to anyone who follows regulatory takings actions against the federal goverment, as the brief makes clear.

For more than a century, the federal government has held substantial funds and 2.9 million acres of land in Arizona in trust for the Tohono O’odham Nation. In United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, No. 09-846, (cert. granted Apr. 19, 2010), the Supreme Court is considering whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over the the Nation’s claim against the federal government for…

Continue Reading Amicus Brief In Supreme Court Case On Court Of Federal Claims Jurisdiction

Worth listening: this LexisNexis podcast. Details:

On this edition, Michael Allan Wolf, Richard E. Nelson Chair in Local Government Law at the Levin College of Law, University of Florida, discusses what real estate practitioners can learn from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida DEP and what it suggests about policies affecting the Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Topics include avulsion, accretion, and the possibility of “judicial taking.”

Continue Reading Podcast On The Judicial Takings Case (Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Envt’l Protection)

You may have missed the live program, but it’s still not too late to get the podcast of a recent discussion of Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (June 17, 2010), the Supreme Court case about judicial takings and beachfront property. Here’s the course description from ALI-ABA:

In an unusual takings case, Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Supreme Court relied on state real property law to conclude that the objecting beachfront property owners lacked a valid property right, and thus the state could “renourish” the beaches. The beachfront owners appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to recognize a new doctrine of judicial takings.

On June 17, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its opinion, which may be a partial victory for property-rights advocates. Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito all endorsed the idea that…

Continue Reading Another Podcast On The Judicial Takings Case (Stop The Beach Renourishment v. Florida)

Here’s your chance to be a well-known “eminent domain photographer.”

The ABA Section of State and Local Government Law will soon be publishing a Handbook on Eminent Domain, and is need of photographs to illustrate it. We’re looking for high resolution, not copyrighted pictures for the various chapters to illustrate “public purpose,” “inverse condemnation,” “pre-trial,” “trial,” “flooding and erosion,” “valuation,” and “damages.”

We’ve thought of appropriate illustrations for some on that list – e.g., a ball stadium for “public purpose, ” a limited-access highway under construction for “damages,” but the creative readers of this blog may have others. Illustrations from projects that you might have been involved in are one possible source (maps, plans, aerials, so it doesn’t necessarily have to be a photograph); high reso and not copyrighted are the primary criteria.

If you have material you’d be willing to share, send it to the book’s editor, Bill Schiederich…

Continue Reading Call For Eminent Domain Photos For Upcoming ABA Book