May 2013

In In re: Condemnation by PPL Electric Utilities Corp., No. 1389 CD 2012 (Pa. Comm’w May 8, 2013), a Pennsylvania state appeals court held the condemnation of property by a utility for a right-of-way to reconstruct electric lines already existing on the land, needed the prior approval of the Public Utilities Commission. The utility had not sought the PUC’s approval because the the statute does not require approval when seeking to rebuild existing lines, and the utility asserted it only meant to do that (and not build new lines).

The declaration of taking, however, was worded much more broadly, and in addition to the rebuilding, also gave the utility the power to “‘construct, operate and maintain … additional Electric Facilities of any type,'” as “‘from time to time [may] be necessary for the convenient transaction of the business of [PPL],’  including the right to erect new facilities, including…

Continue Reading Pa Appellate Ct: Declaration Controls In Eminent Domain, Not Professed Intent

Here’s the video of today’s Ninth Circuit oral arguments in Drake’s Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, the case about an oyster farm in Marin County’s Point Reyes National Seashore, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s decision to not renew its license. The Ninth Circuit has posted the briefs of the parties and amici here.

Here’s our initial post on the case, and here’s our follow up (about one of the amicus briefs).

Here’s a plain language preview of the issues and the arguments. 

Predictions? It seems to us that two of the judges are skeptical of the farm’s arguments, and one may be inclined to agree, but there was nothing we saw on the video that would lead us to think the outcome is obvious. Continue Reading Oral Argument Video In Ninth Circuit Oyster Beef

If you haven’t figured out by now, we like takings claims. We really do. But here’s one where we think the Third Circuit reached the right result when it concluded that there was no compensable taking. National Amusements, Inc. v. Borough of Palmyra, No. 12-1630 (May 9, 2013).

Why? Because when there may be an unexploded artillery shell on the property, and as a result the government seals off the property and temporarily closes the business conducted thereon, we don’t think the Takings Clause requires compensation, that’s why. The property owner thought otherwise, and in response to the Borough’s order to shut down after someone discovered that a flea market site was also former WWII-era muntions magazine and testing area, and that there was still some of that stuff left over, it objected:

The gist of the Complaint is that Palmyra overstated the danger posed by the unexploded munitions…

Continue Reading Third Circuit: Closing A Business To Remove Unexploded Munitions Is Not A Taking

We generally don’t cover unpublished decisions, but since we’re adding this case to our “to watch” list, we’re making an exception. In 62-64 Main Street, LLC v. Mayor and Council of the City of Hackensack, No. A-3257-11T4 (N.J. Super. May 3, 2013), the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court held that “the trial judge and the City misapplied our Supreme Court’s decision in Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007),” when it concluded that the taking of property for redevelopment was supported by a blight finding. The appellate court concluded that the city had not made a factual showing that the properties it wishes to take are in an actual state of “deterioration or stagnation that negatively affects surrounding areas.”

Under the Gallenthin decision, New Jersey courts — unlike the courts in many other states — are not mere rubber…

Continue Reading NJ App: No Blight Proven In Redevelopment Taking

Here’s the opinion of the California Court of Appeal (1st District) in an appeal we’ve been following, Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda, No. A30874 (May 9, 2013), affirming that the County of Alameda is liable for a temporary regulatory taking under Penn Central, and awarding the property owners nearly three-quarters of a million in attorney fees.

The entire opinion is worth reviewing, but here’s the short story. Lockaway purchased agriculturally-zoned land in the East Bay area for use as a boat and RV storage facility, an alternate conditional use in ag-zoned land. For over a decade, the property had been used as such pursuant to a series of Conditional Use Permits. In 2000, however, the voters of the county approved an initiative which prohibited the development of storage facilties, unless approved by public vote. The ordinance contained a provision allowing “minimum development” if the prohibition would deprive…

Continue Reading Cal App Affirms Penn Central Temporary Regulatory Taking

A short one from the Texas Court of Appeals (Third District), involving inverse condemnation. In City of Austin v. GHI Investments, LLC, No. 03-12-00198CV (Tex. App. Apr. 30, 2013), the court held that flooding resulting from the city’s approval of drainage designs that were part of a road widening and bike lane project, stated a claim for inverse condemnation. The trial court refused the city’s motion to dismiss and on an interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals affirmed.

Texas municipalities, like many of their parallel entities in other states, enjoy a limited immunity from tort lawsuits, but that immunity has been waived under the Texas Constitution’s takings clause (and its parallels). That, of course, includes inverse condemnation, and “[t]o plead a valid inverse condemnation claim and establish waiver of immunity under the takings clause, a plaintiff must allege that the governmental agency (1) intentionally performed certain acts in the…

Continue Reading Tex App: Low Threshold For “Intent” In Inverse Condemnation Pleading

Here’s the latest decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court applying the “private attorney general” doctrine, which allows a prevailing party to recover fees and costs in certain limited circumstances. In Kaleikini v. Yoshioka, No. SCAP-11-0000611 (May 2, 2013), the court awarded attorneys’ fees and costs incurred on appeal to the plaintiffs who prevailed in the case challenging the archaeological review for the $4+ billion Honolulu rail project. In its earlier opinion, the court held that the review could not be segmented, and that the city should not have started construction on any part of the project until archaeological review for the entire project had been completed.

Highlights:

  • Ask the appellate court only for those fees and costs you incur in that court; if you want fees incurred in the trial court, seek them there.
  • The going rate for highly skilled and experienced attorneys in Honolulu is darned reasonable

…
Continue Reading HAWSCT’s Latest On The “Private Attorney General” Fee-Shifting Doctrine

Here’s the third and final amicus brief supporting the petitioner in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (cert. petition filed Mar. 22, 2013). The Pacific Legal Foundation brief argues:

This case raises important questions regarding the common law of property ownership and the certainty of titles in property.

. . . .

As fully set out in the Petition, the Tenth Circuit’s rule directly conflicts with decisions of this Court as well as decisions from the Federal Circuit, the Court of Federal Claims, and the Seventh Circuit. Pet. at 17-34. The split of authority regarding ownership of abandoned railroad rights-of-way has been growing for years, and is well-documented. See, e.g., Pet. Cert. App. at 5-6, 22-24 (discussing split of authority); Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (same); 11 Powell on Real Property § 78A (referring to the…

Continue Reading One More Amicus Brief In Railbanking Case: Growing And Well-Documented Circuit Split