2016

Here’s the property owners’ Merits Brief, filed earlier this week in the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the “parcel as a whole” doctrine in regulatory takings (also known as the “denominator” issue).  

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the owners did not have their property taken because they also own the parcel next door. When measured against their use of the two parcels combined, the court concluded their loss of use of the single parcel — otherwise a Lucas “wipeout” — was not a taking.

The brief argues:

Under the facts of this case, there is no reason to deviate from Penn Central. Although the Murrs own two parcels that happen to be adjacent, those parcels were purchased at different times, for different purposes, and have never been considered as a single economic unit or jointly developed. Absent the effect of…

Continue Reading Merits Brief In SCOTUS “Parcel As A Whole” Case – No Aggregation Of Lots Which Owners Treated As Separate

Here’s the amici brief we’re filing today on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center and the Hillsborough County Chapter of the NAACP in support of a cert petition now pending at the Supreme Court.

The case centers around a “class of one” Equal Protection claim in which the plaintiff/petitioner alleges that his land use requests were treated by the County differently than other “similarly situated” landowners. The District Court granted summary judgment to the County because the other owners whom the plaintiff proffered in comparison were not subject to the Keystone Community Plan as were his properties. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

The court held that the comparators must be “identical in all relevant respects,” and since the other owners were not subject to the Keystone CP, end of story. It didn’t matter that the applicable provisions in the Keystone CP were the same as in…

Continue Reading Amici Brief: In Class Of One Equal Protection Claims, Is “Substantially Similar” A Search For Evidence, Or Unicorns?

Charlotte

Urban property at the intersection of two main thoroughfares can be pretty valuable. It’s about location, for sure, but it’s also about visibility and the ability to be seen from four directions.

Charlotte, NC needed a part of such property for a rail line extension. The rail will be in the middle of the road, so the road needed widening, necessitating the partial taking. The rail “Bridge” will be part of that middle-of-the-road construction in an existing public right of way, but will partially block views of the owner’s remaining property (a bank branch).

But the Bridge won’t be on the condemned property, and the city asserted that means it isn’t liable for damages resulting from the loss of visibility. The trial court concluded that the jury could consider evidence of loss of visibility, and the city’s interlocutory appeal followed.

In City of Charlotte v. University Financial Properties, LLC…

Continue Reading No Compensation For Bridge That Blocks View Of Taken Property, But Isn’t On Taken Property

Check this out: in this order, a Wisconsin state trial court today held that the state’s right to work law — which prohibits labor unions “from assessing dues, fees, or other charges of any kind on non-union members” — is a taking. The court concluded that unions have a property interest in the contract negotiation and related services they provide, and the law takes this interest by allowing “free riders” (nonunion members who benefit from the deals the union makes) to, well, free ride. Although the order doesn’t expressly say so, the court concludes, in effect, that the law impresses unions into public service. 

There’s going to be a whole lot more on this case, no doubt, so stay tuned. More here (“State court judge throws out Wisconsin Right to Work Law“) . Remember, Wisconsin Supreme Court justices are elected, which adds another twist.  

Order Granting…

Continue Reading Trial Court: Wisconsin’s Right To Work Law Is A Taking

Here’s what we are reading today: 

  • Here’s the equivalent of law blogger nirvana: a link to one of your pieces by SCOTUSblog: “There is still more commentary on Monday’s ruling in Evenwel v. Abbott, holding that states and local governments may use total population to draw legislative districts. In posts at casetext, Robert Thomas asserts that the ruling “reaffirmed the principle that we the people mostly get to choose who will be included in ‘We The People,’ and when all are included, the federal courts will not interfere.”
  • In Oklevyeha Native American Church of Hawaii, Inc. v. Lynch, No. 14-15143 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2016), a panel of the Ninth Circuit concluded that a Hawaii church which uses marijuana as part of its doctrine did not have a claim under RFRA to prevent it from being prosecuted under the Controlled Substances Act. The court held that the

…
Continue Reading Friday Reading: SCOTUSblog’s Shout-Out; 9th Circuit Says Church Bogarted Evidence In Cannabis Claim; Are Agencies To Blame For Telescope Delay?; WWII Guam Land Seizures Case Moves Forward

In a ruling that no one who was paying attention could claim to be surprised by, the Hawaii Supreme Court yesterday issued a 4-1 memorandum opinion holding that the “agricultural lands” section of the Hawaii Constitution isn’t self-executing, and which approved the State Land Use Commission’s reclassification of land on Oahu from agricultural to urban uses for the “Koa Ridge” master-planned community:  

its constitutional history as well as the legislative history of Act 183 do not reveal an intent to require the LUC to delay reclassifying agricultural land pending formal designation of [Important Agricultural Lands].

Slip op. at 3. Justice Pollack, as he did in a prior case on the same issue, dissented.

No Surprises

We say no surprise, because only a few months ago, the same majority (Chief Justice Recktenwald, and Justices Nakayama and McKenna, joined by a circuit judge sitting for the recused — and now…

Continue Reading HAWSCT Says It Again: Court Won’t Create A Moratorium While “Important Ag Lands” Process Completes

Yet another detour back to our second favorite topic, election law.

Casetext asked us to provide some commentary and analysis of the Supreme Court’s recent Evenwel opinion, and we produced this piece (“What Does Evenwel v. Abbott Mean For ‘One Person, One Vote?’“), which is a refinement of our earlier blog post containing our initial thoughts on the decision.  

It’s not a long piece and we hope you read it (even you land users and takings mavens, who may be asked about this big case at your next cocktail party — all lawyers, after all, must be prepared at such events to respond to inquiries about every recent Supreme Court decision, even if they are far afield from your usual area of practice). The short answer to the question posed in the title is: 

Evenwel has transformed the “one-person, one-vote'” rule in reapportionment cases into…

Continue Reading What Does Evenwel v. Abbott Mean For “One Person, One Vote?”

When you raise 13 issues on appeal, you shouldn’t be surprised if the court balks at analyzing them all. That was the case in City of Gulfport v. Dedeaux Utility Co., No. 2014-CA-00556-SCT (Mar. 24, 2016), where the Mississippi Supreme Court didn’t address the majority of the points raised by the city on appeal, but narrowed down the list to five. And of those five, the court found error in only one. 

You can slog through the details in the court’s opinion, but let’s see if we can’t give you the highlights.

Most of the issues raised on appeal were the result of the city’s delay in actually taking possession of Dedeaux, a PUC-regulated utility. The city waited eight years after it filed the taking action to do so. The city filed its condemnation action in 1996, but did not physically take possession until 2004, after the eminent…

Continue Reading “Interesting” Eminent Domain Opinion: No Evidence Of Jury Compromise Verdict In City’s Taking Of Utility

Early next month, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases which we’ve been closely following:

  • Tuesday, May 3, 2016, 9:00 am – Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court, No. S217738. The court is considering whether California’s “entry statute” which allows a condemning agency to enter property for testing and inspection exempted the Department of Water Resources from adhering to the protections in the eminent domain code when the government physically invades property. We filed an amicus brief in that case arguing that “any non-trivial physical invasion of private property is a per se taking requiring just compensation and adherence to eminent domain procedures. The intrusions sought by DWR and ordered by the Superior Court cannot be dismissed as mere “entries.” This is not only a long-standing tenet of California constitutional law (see Jacobsen, supra, 192 Cal. at 329), it is a baseline Fifth Amendment principle, and

…
Continue Reading Big Eminent Domain Days Coming Up At The California Supreme Court

Who must may be counted for reapportionment purposes?

Everyone!

A slight detour from our usual fare, to post some thoughts about today’s big  U.S. Supreme Court opinion on election law in Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940. Evenwel is the sleeper case of the Term, and opened the possibility that the we might finally get an answer to a question the Supreme Court has dodged for over fifty years, involving the seemingly mundane issue of who can states count when they reapportion their legislatures: All Census-counted residents? U.S. citizens? Those eligible to vote? And who must they count? 

In today’s ruling the Court didn’t cast the net wide, but instead (as we urged it to do in our amicus brief) drew a narrow rule: states may count everyone, but they are not required to. Thus, Texas’s plan, and the plans of those states which count total population…

Continue Reading Mantras Without Meanings (We Takings Lawyers Predicted This One) – 8-0 SCOTUS Rules States May Count Everyone In Reapportionment