May 2017

The Supreme Court yesterday issued an opinion in an expropriation case we’ve been following.

No, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., No. 15-423 (May 1, 2017), isn’t about redevelopment, or public use and the like, but about the nationalization by Venezuela of oil exploration equipment. The owner of the seized property predictably didn’t get far in the Venezuelan legal process, so brought suit in U.S. federal court for damages for the taking. The DC Circuit, as we noted here, held that Venezuela didn’t enjoy immunity. Game on! 

The unanimous Supreme Court disagreed – it turned out that the corporate owner of the drilling equipment is a Venezuelan citizen, and thus, international law isn’t available as a remedy for a taking of its property by the Venezuelan government (the international law remedy is only available to foreigners whose property is wrongly seized).

Continue Reading Kelo, Venezuela Edition: It’s Not Our Problem If Foreign Governments Expropriate Their Own Citizens’ Property

Do you really need an excuse to visit Seattle? If you do, and want to earn some CLE credit while you’re at it, check it out the brochure for the upcoming Eminent Domain seminar on May 18, 2017. This is a one-day program that focuses on the hot topics in our area of law. We’ll be speaking about “Changes in National Public Policy” and the latest developments in eminent domain and takings law. 

Agenda and full registration information here

Come, join us. 

7th Annual Eminent Domain Seminar, Seattle, Washington, May 18, 2017 

Continue Reading Seattle Eminent Domain Conference, May 18, 2017

We don’t usually post trial court decisions. They are, obviously, subject to change by an appellate court, and because many are interlocutory, alteration by the rendering court iself.

But for this order from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, we’ll make an exception. It’s a land use case (it’s right there in the first sentence, “This is a land use case.”), in which the plaintiffs are challenging two ordinances adopted by the County. The first prohibited obstruction of the beach with ropes, chains, signs, or fences. The second prohibited anyone from interfering with public use of dry sand beach areas. Under Florida law, the dry sand portion of the beach is privately owned. 

As you might expect, because the effect of the ordinance was to invite the public to use private property (as Laurence Tribe wrote in his treatise on Constitutional Law when discussing Kaiser Aetna

Continue Reading Federal Court: Williamson County Ripeness Not Required In Facial Takings Claims