November 2017

Check this out: according to this article (“This SC man won a Supreme Court case. He wants to know why he can’t talk about it“), David Lucas, the lawyer-property owner behind the big reg takings case Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1993), was apparently not invited to speak at the (ongoing) event at the University of South Carolina law school marking the 25th anniversary of the decision. The local paper reports:

The University of South Carolina law school is holding a three-day event to mark the 25th anniversary of a S.C. man’s legal victory in the U.S. Supreme Court. But the victor in that case, Davis Lucas, isn’t invited, and he’s upset.

. . . .

Lucas, who sued for the right to build on two lots on the Isle of Palms, is upset neither he nor his attorneys were invited…

Continue Reading Lucas Not Invited To Lucas Conference

20170918_190120
No soup for you!

Update: our colleague Bryan Wenter has his take on one of the cases denied review here (“U.S. Supreme Court Again Declines to Consider Important Property Rights Issue Regarding the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine“) (“Because the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court leans ideologically conservative by any traditional measure and it takes only four of nine Justices to grant certiorari, on the surface it is surprising that the Court has yet to take up a case, such as CBIA or 616 Croft Ave., that would finally resolve this distinction between sweeping legislative takings and particularized administrative takings. The surprise is enhanced to a degree by the fact that the Court considered both cases in conference four times, which suggests a serious interest in the issue.”).

* * * *

To bring you up to speed on cases of interest in the Supreme Court’s cert pipeline…

Continue Reading Cert Denied, Denied, Denied, Denied In Property Cases (But Don’t Give Up The Ship Just Yet)

We’ve been receiving a lot of visits lately from folks looking for information on inverse condemnation liability after the recent Northern California wildfires, and the flooding in Houston. In addition to the news stories (see SF Chronicle wildfire story here, and the Texas Tribune flood story here) which we’ve already posted, here are other links which may be useful:

…
Continue Reading More On Inverse Condemnation Liability For Fires And Floods

Update: Forbes is covering this story, here: Nick Sibilla, “Landowner’s Bill Of Rights Are Not ‘Suggested Guidelines,’ Georgia Supreme Court Rules“

* * * *

Here’s a decision which we’ve been waiting for in a case we’ve been following since it was decided in the intermediate appellate court, involving Georgia’s “landowner bill of rights.” 

In City of Marietta v. Summerour, No. S17G0057 (Oct. 30, 2017), the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that when a statute says “before the initiation of negotiations” with a property owner, the condemnor must “establish and amount it believes to be just compensation,” and “shall make a prompt offer” of that amount to the owner, and that the agency “shall provide” the owner a written statement of how it determined that amount — that it means just that. “Shall” means must, and “before” means before. So the failure of the agency to provide…

Continue Reading Georgia’s Eminent Domain Requirements Are Not The Pirate’s Code: “Before” Means “Before,” And Bad Faith Need Not Be Shown When Condemnor Didn’t Strictly Comply With The Statute