June 2015

Hardly seems like a decade ago that the Supreme Court gave us eminent domain lawyers something to talk about at cocktail parties: the Court’s infamous and widely-hated decision in Kelo v. City of New London. 

Find out about what the intervening ten years has brought us from the Cato Institute, which is sponsoring a program later this week  about “Property Rights on the 10th Anniversary of Kelo v. City of New London.” 

Featuring Ilya Somin, Author, The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain, and Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law; Scott Bullock, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice and Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Kelo v. City of New LondonKelo v. City of New London

The full agenda and registration information is here. If you can’t be in D.C. this week, you can watch the conference live…

Continue Reading Upcoming Conference On Kelo’s 10th Anniversary

Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, No. F069145 (June 3, 2015), is one especially for you Californians, addressing the somewhat unusual process under state law for challenging a land use action by local government which is claimed to take property.

Under the California Supreme Court’s decision in Hensler v. City of Glendale, 876 P.2d 1043 (Cal. 1994), before a landowner can seek just compensation for a regulatory taking, it must first challenge the validity of the action using the writ of mandate procedure (administrative appeal to all you non-Californians), to allow the agency the chance to rescind the act. The property owner may — but need not — join to the writ of mandate a claim for damages (just compensation), and raise the claims concurrently.

Sometimes plaintiffs do join both claims in a single complaint, sometimes they don’t. Hensler is considered an exception to the usual rule prohibiting…

Continue Reading Cal App: Mandamus Challenge To Validity Of Govt Action Must Include Takings Claim

Third time around for Lost Tree’s takings case against the federal government on this blog.

The first was the Federal Circuit’s decision concluding that a single Florida parcel owned by the plaintiff was the relevant parcel against which the impact of the Corps of Engineers’ denial of a § 404 wetlands dredge and fill permit is to be measured. The court overturned a Court of Federal Claims decision which concluded the relevant parcel was that single plot plus an additional nearby lot, plus “scattered wetlands in the vicinity” also owned by the same owner. 

Second was the Court of Federal Claims, which on remand held that there was a taking, and that, after applying either the Lucas total wipeout or the Penn Central ad hoc test (the diminution in value caused by the denial of the permit was 99.4%), the just compensation owed to Lost Tree was in the neighborhood…

Continue Reading Fed Cir: “Economically Beneficial Use” Means More Than Someone Might Buy The Property

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following, a takings claim against the federal government which was dismissed by the Federal Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1500, the statute which deprives the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction over a case if a related case is pending in another court at the time the CFC complaint is filed.

The core issue is one we’ve dealt with extensively before, and which the Supreme Court dodged in in United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011), namely, whether § 1500’s jurisdictional bar operates in takings claims, which are required to be split between the CFC and the district courts (aka the “Tucker Act Shuffle”). We filed an amicus brief in that case, arguing that the statute cannot be read to deprive takings plaintiffs of their right to secure just compensation, when they may be required…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Revisiting Tohono And § 1500 In Federal Takings Claims

Here’s a recent piece from Richard Borecca, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser’s political reporter, about the Texas reapportionment case recently set for full briefing and argument by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“In Hawaii, eligible voters count more than people” is behind a partial paywall, but here’s the key points in the event you are not a subscriber:

  • Hawaii has never counted the entire census-counted resident population for purposes of apportioning its state legislature. It has always relied on a method that somehow excludes active duty military and their families who reside in Hawaii from the reapportionment count. 
  • Hawaii is one of two states which does not base reapportionment on total census-counted population (Kansas being the other). 
  • When voter registration and participation was high in the years following statehoood in 1959, Hawaii counted registered voters, which due to the high percentage of Hawaii residents who registered to vote, was an accurate

…
Continue Reading Star-Advertiser: Hawaii “Is Exception To Constitutional Law” In State Reapportionment

Last week, the Hawaii Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sierra Club v. Castle and Cooke Homes Hawaii, Inc., No. SCAP-13-0000765, a case involving a challenge by the usual suspects to a State Land Use  Commission “boundary amendment” (aka state “rezoning” to those of you not familiar with Hawaii’s top-heavy state land use planning scheme). 

According to the Judiciary web site summary of the case, here are the issues:

In this case, Appellants Sierra Club and Senator Clayton Hee appeal from the Decision and Order of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, which denied and dismissed their appeal from the Land Use Commission’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order, which approved Appellee Castle & Cooke’s Petition for District Boundary Amendment. The Land Use Commission reclassified approximately 769 acres of Castle & Cooke’s land from the state agricultural land use district to the state…

Continue Reading Guest Post: HAWSCT Oral Arguments In Koa Ridge – Is The State Prohibited From Rezoning “Potential” Important Ag Land?