According to this site, several property owners in Tinicum Township, Pennsylvania, are subject to having their properties taken for expansion of the Philadelphia airport. One owner’s objection has taken an unusual form — he’s written a song about it. Check it out.
Delco Raaed from Delco Raaed on Vimeo.Continue Reading A Property Owner’s View Of Eminent Domain
Remember Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon, 997 N.J. 390 (N.J. 2010)? That the case in which the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the six year statute of limitations on inverse condemnation claims did not begin to run until 2005, when the Borough began claiming that a taking occurred, even though it physically took the property in 1965. We detailed the opinion here.
The New Jersey Law Journal described the Appellate Division‘s opinion — which held that the government can assert inverse condemnation in order to take property without compensation — as the “bizarre condemnation.” How that argument came to be is a long story which we detailed in this post so we won’t recount it here.
It looks like the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion is not quite the last chapter in the story.
filed this cert petition, asking the U.S. Supreme Court
Continue Reading Cert Petition In New Jersey’s “Bizarre Condemnation”
According to this report, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to review Kelmm v. American Transmission Co., No. 2009AP2784 (Aug. 10, 2010) (a court of appeals’ decision we noted here). In that case, the court of appeals held that in order to obtain litigation expenses under a state statute which provides that a property owner may recover expenses if a condemnation award exceeds the “jurisdictional offer” by at least $700 and at least 15%, there must be a “jurisdictional offer” made.
Wisconsin eminent domain procedure has a two-fold path, one of which results in a “jurisdictional offer,” and the other a negotiated settlement. Either path can end up before the condemnation commission. ATC wanted to place an electricity transmission line across Klemm’s land. Rather than fight the taking, the Klemms “agreed to the $7,750 compensation ATC offered in negotiations, with the understanding they had the right to
An opinion today from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Association of Irritated Residents v. Envt’l Protection Agency, No. 09-71414 (Feb. 2, 2011)
The case involves whether the EPA properly approved revisions to California’s State Implementation Plan for meeting air quality standards for ozone under the Clean Air Act. The court granted the petition and remanded the case to the EPA for further consideration.
But what really grabbed us was the plaintiff: “Association of Irritated Residents.” Oh, we get it: AIR. How cheeky. Reminds me of those catchy names plaintiff’s groups often use (see, e.g., United States v. SCRAP (Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures), 412 U.S. 669 (1972)), and the acronyms that float around the land use arena to describe motivation (e.g., NIMBY, BANANA), which we discussed in this post.
But I think “Association of Irritated Residents” Continue Reading Best Plaintiff Group Name: Association of Irritated Residents
On Friday, February 4, 2011, starting at 10 a.m. HST, we will be live blogging the Hawaii Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor’s hearing on the appointment of Judge Sabrina McKenna as an Associate Justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court. Our Damon Key colleague Rebecca Copeland will be in the room covering it.
We live blogged the Governor’s announcement of Judge McKenna’s appointment here. This is Governor Abercrombie’s first appointment to the court, and breaking from past tradition, he did not publicly announced the list of candidates transmitted to him from the Judicial Selection Commission. We’re guessing this confirmation hearing will not generate much opposition, so the hearing will be more like Justice Recktenwald’s, and not like Judge Leonard’s.
Go here to find out more how to submit testimony (due 24 hours prior to the hearing).
If you can’t make it to the hearing, come join the
Since this is the season for self-congratulatory industry awards, we can’t overlook one of our industry’s highest honors, the Zoning and Planning Law Report Land Use Decision Awards (aka the “ZiPLeRs”). For those of you who do not subscribe to the Zoning and Planning Law Report, the “strangest, or at least more dramatic” land use cases each year are eligible for nomination for a ZiPLeR.
Our colleage Dwight Merriam recently announced the 2010 Awards in the January 2011 issue of ZPLR, and what do you know, a case we nominated “won” the “Home Business Of The Year” Award. We use the term “won” quite loosely, since if you read the facts of the 11th Circuit case, Flava Works, Inc. v. City of Miami, No. 09-11264 (June 25, 2010), involving a South Florida “voyeur/porn dorm” and whether it qualifies as a “business,” this isn’t exactly something we’re going to
Continue Reading What’s An Oscar, Emmy, Or Tony When Compared To A ZiPLeR?
