Check it out: Clint Schumacher’s latest Eminent Domain Podcast, with guest Professor Ilya Somin on Murr v. Wisconsin. Continue Reading Murr Podcast, Episode IV: A New Hope?
The Federal Courts Aren’t “Super Zoning Boards Of Appeal,” But They Have Time For Monkey Selfies
Virginia: Right To Exclude Doesn’t Include Right To Exclude Potential Condemnors (For Now)
In Palmer v. Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, No. 1160630 (July 13, 2017), the Virginia Supreme Court concluded that an out-of-state natural gas company has the power under Virginia’s “entry statute” to enter private property to conduct surveys to determine if the land is suitable for condemnation for a pipeline.
When a property owner turned down Atlantic’s request to come on her land, the company sought a declaratory judgment from the court. The owner asserted that the statute only allowed Virginia public service companies to use the statute, and Atlantic didn’t qualify. She also argued that the statute, if it allows Atlantic to enter, unconstitutionally burdens her right to exclude. The trial court agreed with Atlantic on both arguments.
The Supreme Court made short work of Palmer’s argument that out-of-state pipeline companies can’t use the statute. Why? The statute itself doesn’t preclude them from doing so. It says
Condemnor Didn’t Have To Pay For Escaped Gas
Escaping gas isn’t enough, it has to be captured.
Yes, a clickbaity title, but this one is about just compensation, so please. You can create your own puns for this case, Northern Natural Gas Co. v. L.D. Drilling Defendants, No. 15-3272 (July 11, 2017), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered things like natural gas injections and escapes, companies that can’t control their gas, and the difference between “migrating,” “injected,” and “native” gas. Yeah, baby.
Northern owned a mostly-depleted underground natural gas field, and when the gas in place ran out, it used the area as a gas storage area. Over time, it noticed that it was pulling out less gas than it was putting in, leading to the conclusion that some of its stored gas was leaking out into nearby fields, owned by others. So it exercised its delegated power of
Continue Reading Condemnor Didn’t Have To Pay For Escaped Gas
Murr: The Law Review Editors’ Full Employment Act
Update 7/24/2017: Here is our contribution to the article scene.
—————————————–
Someone (I think it was Professor Ilya Somin [update: confirmed – he noted it here]) recently noted that if nothing else, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Murr v. Wisconsin will be a boon for law professors looking for something to fill up law journals. Sidebar: here’s a link to some of the commentary so far on Murr.
And not only for lawprofs, we hope. Their stuff can be useful, but we think there’s a need for those of us in the practicing Bar to contribute as well. We often complain that legal scholarship isn’t of much use to us down in the trenches, so here’s one chance to address that. Stop kvetching and start writing! I’ll do my part, and am currently underway with an article that I anticipate will make three main points:
First
Continue Reading Murr: The Law Review Editors’ Full Employment Act
Conn App: Because Owner Can Easily Correct The Problem With Confiscatory Regulation, His Reasonable Expectations Have Not Been Thwarted
A very short one from the Connecticut Appellate Court, Santos v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. AC37281 (July 11, 2017) in a Penn Central-style takings challenge to local land use regulations. We’re going to set out the facts, then let you guess who prevailed.
The plaintiff purchased an unimproved parcel of land in Stratford at a tax sale conducted by the town in May, 2002. The prior owner had owned the property for approximately seventeen years, but had never attempted to develop the property. The town had never formally approved the property as a building lot. In noticing the sale of the property, the town included a warning that the property had not been guaranteed to be buildable under the town’s current zoning regulations. The property was sold to the plaintiff for approximately one half of its assessed value, and the prior owner made no attempt to exercise his
2018 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation (Charleston, SC) Early-Bird Discount Registration Open
ALI-CLE has posted up the early bird registration page for the 2018 edition of the Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, to be held January 25-27, 2018 in an exciting new venue, Charleston, South Carolina.
We are putting the agenda and faculty together for the Conference (which, as always, will include the Condemnation 101 track for those new to eminent domain practice, or who could use a refresher course). There’s a lot going on in our field, and we will put out the details and ALI will update the site once we finalize everything.
There’s a benefit to early registration: this year’s conference in San Diego was at capacity, and signing up now will both reserve your spot, and get a discounted registration fee. Continue Reading 2018 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation (Charleston, SC) Early-Bird Discount Registration Open
Murr Round-Up
Now that the dust has settled somewhat, for your weekend reading, here are your links to some of the vast amount of commentary which the Murr v. Wisconsin decision has thus far generated:
- “Justices Answer Parcel Question in Property-Rights Dispute” – Courthouse News Service
- “Murr – SCOTUS Meets Dick Babcock’s Ghost” – Gideon Kanner at Gideon’s Trumpet
- “United States Supreme Court Rejects Takings Claim and Upholds Lot Merger Regulation” – Edward Sullivan at Law of the Land blog
- “Yes, Justice Thomas, the doctrine of regulatory takings is originalist” – Jim Burling at PLF Liberty blog
- “Another Bleak Day for Property Owners” – Cato Institute
- “Courthouse Steps: Murr v. Wisconsin Decided – Podcast” – Federalist Society
- “Big Victory for State and Local Governments in Murr” – John Echeverria at Takings Litigation blog
- “SCOTUS Announces New Multi-Factor
Georgia Supreme Court Considering Whether Landowner’s Bill Of Rights Are Merely “Guidelines”
Night of the Living Zombie Zoning Inspectors – Ordinance Allowing Searches For Unauthorized Cemeteries “Constitutionally Suspect,” But Not Yet Justiciable
The Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, apparently has a problem of unregulated cemeteries. Who knew?
So it did what local government do when they think they have a problem, it passed a law. That law, Ordinance 12-12-20-001, required owners of all cemeteries, public or private, to maintain them. The ordinance also contained two troublesome provisions. First, it requires the owners of the cemeteries to keep them open to the public during the day. Second, it allows the Township’s code inspectors to enter “any property” to inspect and see if it is in compliance with the ordinance.
Under the authority of the ordinance, a code inspector came on Knick’s property without a warrant, and told her “guess what, these stones are actually grave markers, and you better clean up this cemetery.” Knick’s response was “what cemetery? My land doesn’t have a cemetery on it.” Not buying it, the inspector wrote