Here’s the recording of the March 20, 2017 oral arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, the e “larger parcel” or “denominator” case.
The printed transcript is posted here, and our summary of the arguments is posted here. Our preview of the arguments, which includes link to the briefs, is here.
Under Nebraska law, Natural Resource Districts possess the power of eminent domain, delegated to them by the state legislature. The question in Estermann v. Bose, No. S-15-1022 (Apr. 7, 2017) was whether four of those NRD’s could, in turn, re-delegate that power to a new agency which they jointly formed under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, a Nebraska statute which allows such things.
This new agency — the only-could-be-named-by-government “N-CORPE” (Nebraska Cooperative Republican Platte Enhancement) — was formed to regulate and manage water to comply with the Republican River Compact. Part of its duties included a “stream flow augmentation project” to manage ground and surface water, a portion of which required it to institute condemnation proceedings to take a portion of Estermann’s land for a flowage easement.
In a separate lawsuit, Estermann sued, seeking an injunction prohibiting the taking because N-CORPE did not possess the power of eminent domain.
Here’s the third amicus brief filed in support of our cert petition in Bay Point Properties, Inc. v. Mississippi Transportation Commission, a case asking whether the Just Compensation Clause prohibits a court from instructing an inverse condemnation jury that it must value taken property as if it was burdened by a highway easement which the jury found as a matter of fact had been abandoned.
This brief was submitted by a stellar group of public interest organizations and legal scholars: Cato Institute, the NFIB Small Business Legal Center, Reason Foundation, Southwest Legal Foundation, NARPO (the National Association of Reversionary Property Owners), the Property Rights Foundation of America, and Professor James Ely (property and easement expert), Shelley Ross Saxer (land use and takings), and Ilya Somin (eminent domain, among other subjects).
The brief, authored by Thor Hearne and his Federal Takings team, Cato’s Ilya Shapiro, and…
Here’s another amici brief (on behalf of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, and Owners’ Counsel of America, authored by takings/SCOTUS superstar Michael Berger) supporting the cert petition we filed last month which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court. Here’s the amicus brief which Pacific Legal Foundation filed earlier.
This post has the background on the case and issues.
The VIPP/OCA brief argues:
1. It is important for the Court to reassert the primacy of federal law as determining the baseline protection provided to private property owners by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Although the issue should not be at large, a number of courts — as exemplified by the Mississippi Supreme Court — are seeking to secure for themselves the right and the power to redefine property in such a way as to confiscate private property for the use of…
Here’s the amicus brief, filed yesterday by Pacific Legal Foundation is support of the cert petition we filed last month which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court.
First, some background. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina destroyed “Toll Project No. 1,” the U.S. Highway 90 crossing of Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. The bridge had been partially built on Petitioner Bay Point’s property pursuant to a highway-purpose easement granted to the State in 1952 by Bay Point’s predecessor-in-title. After the hurricane, the Mississippi Transportation Commission removed what was left of the bridge. The destruction of the bridge and the removal of the remnants discontinued the specific use authorized by the easement, and Bay Point should have immediately recovered unencumbered possession. Instead, MTC built an entirely new bridge in a different location, and converted the majority of the former highway easement into a public recreational park.…
There’s a lot of backstory in Reoforce, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-5084 (Mar. 17, 2017), involving mining claims, federal patents, and public lands. An interesting read, we won’t go into the details.
But suffice it to say that Reoforce thought it had a pretty decent chance of obtaining a patent for federal land because there was a market for what Reoforce thought was a valuable mineral, pumicite. In the end, Reoforce didn’t get the patent because there wasn’t as much of a market for the pumicite as it believed, but under federal law, Reoforce still had a limited property right to mine the stuff in remote Kern County, California.
Eventually, the BLM entered into an agreement with the California Parks Department to turn that land into Red Rock Canyon State Park. Certain mining claims were allowed to continue, but others were temporarily prohibited. Reoforce’s were among the…
Continue Reading Fed Cir: BLM’s Temporary Prohibition On Mining Not A Penn Central Taking
When most jurisdictions reacted to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S 469 (2005), they — naturally being aghast at the result — adopted legislation that either purported to make it easier on landowners, or harder on condemnors. Understandable, as the public uproar which Kelo caused has yet to settle down completely even a decade later.
But not Louisiana. Oh no, that state’s legislature apparently decided that Kelo was a good opportunity to make it harder for a property owner to recover compensation. We’re not even going to pretend to understand all that is going on in South Lafourche Levee District v. Jarreau, No. 2016-C-0788 (Mar. 31, 2017), with its differences between “expropriation” and “appropriation,” compensation measured by “full extent of the loss” versus merely “just compensation,” and the like. Louisiana, after all, can be a whole ‘nother brand of law, sometimes.…