2015

As readers may know, we try to look for an eminent domain angle everywhere. So here you go.

Today’s Supreme Court decision upholding the ACA‘s purpose over its text, reminds us of our favorite scene in any legal film, Dennis Denuto, Esq.’s oral argument in the Australian eminent domain comedy The Castle, in which he argues that the court should rule for his client based only on “the vibe” of the written law.

In response to the judge asking him what section of the Australian Constitution supported his case, he responds, “[t]here is no one section, it’s … just the vibe of the thing.”

Six Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court approve!

Related articles
Kelo At 10: Still Stinks, And A Decade Has Not Lessened The Odor
Texas Supreme Court Wants More Argument: Is Court Powerless When A Condemnor Dithers?

Continue Reading The Eminent Domain Angle In Today’s Not-Eminent-Domain Supreme Court Decision

Everyone is distracted today by the too-big-to-fail “Obamacare” ruling by the 6-3 Supreme Court (or, as Justice Scalia called it “SCOTUScare“), in which the Court concluded that the vibe of a statute matters more than its actual language, and the Court’s ruling in the “disparate impact” fair housing case (speaking of which, we wish the Court would apply the same standards to pretext in eminent domain), and we certainly wouldn’t want to divert your attention from that thrilling enterprise, so we’ll keep it brief with this post. 

In Teitlebaum v. South Florida Water Mgmt District, No. 3D14-0963 (June 24, 2015), the Florida District Court of Appeals held that there’s no such thing as condemnation blight in an inverse condemnation case. Teitlebaum and her neighbors among them have owned 3,550 acres of Ag-zoned land on the edge of the Everglades for decades, “apparently hoping that the land…

Continue Reading Florida App: Inverse Plaintiffs Must First Show A Wipeout Taking Before “Condemnation Blight” Considered

Apa_2015_planning_law_review

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015, the American Planning Association is putting on the 2015 Planning Law Review, a program highlighting the most important and topical cases decided by the courts recently. Here’s the program description:

Planning feels the impact of decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, federal district courts, and state courts. How will their rulings affect you? Get a briefing on the year’s legal developments, from First Amendment issues to environmental actions, housing, and equal access. Presenters also will discuss major legislative initiatives and APA’s amicus filings. Join in a lively, informative program you and your staff, colleagues, and officials won’t want to miss. This program is also suitable for planning commissioners.

Joining me on the faculty are Jason Jordan, Director, Policy and Communications, American Planning Association (Moderator); Nancy Ellen Stroud, Lewis, Stroud & Deutsch; John M. Baker, Greene Espel; and John Echeverria, Professor of…

Continue Reading Upcoming APA Webinar: 2015 Planning Law Review

We are distracted today so haven’t had the time to write up our initial thoughts about Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275 (June 22, 2015), the California raisins takings case which the Supreme Court decided yesterday.

So instead we did this video, a take off on those goofy tech “unboxing” videos.

We’ll have more in the traditional format once we have a chance to write something down.  Continue Reading Unboxing Video: Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture

In case you somehow missed it, takings junkies, today, June 23, 2015, is the tenth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s excreable 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), and just about anyone who is anyone in our field has weighed in with a retrospective. We don’t have much to add, since wiser minds than ours have some very cogent thoughts.

But here’s how we view the decision, ten years on:

  • Still stinks. A decade has not lessened the odor.
  • We filed an amicus brief in Kelo explaining why economic development wasn’t enough to support New London’s taking of a perfectly good home, and we still think we’re right. 
  • Many states and local jurisdictions reacted and adopted legislative reforms. Some helpful, many not. Guess which state did nothing, despite several proposals made over several legislative sessions? Hawaii, where we say we like the little

…
Continue Reading Kelo At 10: Still Stinks, And A Decade Has Not Lessened The Odor

In all of today’s excitement about the Court’s opinions in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275, the “raisin takings” case which we posted about earlier, we almost lost sight of the other property rights decision issued by the Court, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, No.13-1175 (June 22, 2015). 

The case did not present takings, land use, or eminent domain issues, but we’ve been following along with interest nonetheless, because at stake was the right of a Los Angeles hotel owner to require the police to obtain a warrant before he allowed inspection of the hotel’s guest register. The Court’s majority said yes, hotel owners really do need the opportunity to make the police get a warrant before the police can force the hotel to open up its records.

The opinion by Justice Sotomayor and joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, didn’t talk about property…

Continue Reading Today’s Other Supreme Court Property Rights Decision

Any time the Supreme Court rules for a property owner in a takings case, you’ve got reason to celebrate. 

They didn’t pay the fine, g8vt didn’t take grab their raisins. Case over
So whats next? Does the dept have to write a check to the Hornes for $xxxx? Well, no, they csnt get that relief in usdc.
Breyer didnt apply the free rider argument to the taking part, but to the just comp part.
Do i want to live in a country without a raisin makrketing board?
1. Title page …. syllabus … who cares….

2. More syllabus ….

3. More syllabus …

4. OK, here we go. “PHYSICALLY SET ASIDE” OK, game over, Hornes win. This is going to be another one of those cases in which we cite for the Court’s physical occupation fetish – you know, Kaiser Aetna, Loretto … and now Horne.
“The question is whether…

Continue Reading Easy Cases Made Hard: Horne v. USDA And California Raisins (And Affordable Housing)

… look no further than the above report from The Daily Show.

Yeah, it’s satire and does at times make light of a serious case, but the USDA was trying to defend a regulation that branded the Hornes as “raisin outlaws,” going so far as to hire a private security firm to “investigate the product” that the Hornes were defrauding the government of (dried fruit).

Top off “the world’s most outdated law” with the Ninth Circuit’s ridiculous avoidance after the Supreme Court’s earlier remand (the Takings Clause does not apply with equal force to personal property as it does to land) , and you have the recipe for success and an 8-1 ruling. 

Related articles
Magna Raisins: 8-1 SCOTUS Says There’s A Taking, But Not All Agree On

…
Continue Reading Here’s Why The Supreme Court Held The Raisin Marketing Order Was Unconstitutional…

Update: here’s more Horne talk, in addition to our own initial thoughts in the above video and this post (“Magna Raisins: 8-1 SCOTUS Says There’s A Taking, But Not All Agree On Remedy“):

…
Continue Reading Raisin Round-Up