2017

What to make the Justice Kennedy-authored 5 justice majority opinion in Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214 (June 23, 2017)? 

There, the majority adopted — maybe “created from whole cloth” would be a more accurate description — a multifactor test for determining the “larger parcel’ or “denominator” in regulatory takings cases where the owner possesses more than a single parcel of land.  We quoted the opinion’s list in this post, and won’t repeat it entirely here, but below is a short list of things that now must be considered by lower court judges (not juries) when they are deciding how much of the property the plaintiff owns can be used to measure the impact of the regulation on the parcel which she claims was taken:

  • The “treatment of land.” Yes, the actual metes-and-bounds of the legal parcel, but also, get this, the “expectations … an acquirer of land must

…
Continue Reading Justice Kennedy’s Social Justice Warrior Test For Takings Clause “Property” In Murr v. Wisconsin

We obviously wish we had better news, but today, the U.S. Supreme Court in this order declined to review the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in a just compensation case in which we represented the petitioner. 

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas filed this brief statement:

When a State negotiates an easement limited to one purpose but later uses the land for an entirely different purpose, can the State limit, by operation of statute, the compensation it must pay for that new taking? The Mississippi Supreme Court held that it may do just that. But this decision seems difficult to square with the teachings of this Court’s cases holding that legislatures generally cannot limit the compensation due under the Takings Clause of the Constitution. See Monongahela Navi. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 327 (1893). Tension appears to exist, too, between the decision here and decisions of…

Continue Reading “Important” Issue And A Lower Court Split, But Cert Denied In Just Comp Case

Update: Here are my first thoughts on Murr – “Justice Kennedy’s Social Justice Warrior Test for Takings Clause Property in Murr v. Wisconsin“

Lot-lines-color-2

The title alone should tell you this was authored by Justice Kennedy, which means that, as we thought it might do, today the U.S. Supreme Court held in Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214 (June 23, 2017) that in determining the “denominator” in regulatory takings cases — in other words, what “property” owned by the plaintiff is the claimed diminution in value of the taken property compared — that “a number of factors” make up the inquiry, including: (1) “the treatment of the land, in particular how it is bounded or divided, under state and local law” (i.e., title); (2) the “physical characteristics” of the property (your guess is as good as ours); and (3) the “value of the property under the challenged regulation”…

Continue Reading SCOTUS, 5-3 Affirms Murr By Penn Centralizing Parcel As A Whole Analysis, Which Must Consider “A Number of Factors”

SCOTUSblog takes note of our cert petition in Bay Point Properties, Inc. v. Mississippi Transportation Commission, No. 16-1077 (cert. petition filed Mar. 3, 2017), a case which seeks U.S. Supreme Court review of a decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court. We represent the Petitioner.

In the “Petitions to Watch” segment, Aurora Barnes writes:

In its conference of June 22, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the just-compensation clause prohibits a legislature from limiting how just compensation for a taking is calculated and whether the just-compensation clause allows the jury to value the fee interest taken as if it were still encumbered by a discontinued highway easement; and whether the anti-retaliation provision for “whistleblowers” in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 extends to individuals who have not reported alleged misconduct to the Securities and Exchange Commission and…

Continue Reading SCOTUSblog Notes Bay Point Just Comp Case As “Petition To Watch”

As readers may be aware, I’ll be taking over as Chair of the ABA’s Section of State and Local Government Law in a couple of months. I understand that many of my colleagues do not see the value in ABA participation, and I’ve explained why I do so here. It’s been a wonderful way for me to meet colleagues from around the nation, develop professional skills, learn about areas of law which I should know but do not practice. In short, it’s made me a better lawyer. If you aren’t participating, you really should consider it.  

We sent out a call for leaders this morning via email, and I’m reproducing it here for those of you who may be interested in joining our little enterprise but who didn’t get the email. 

Come, join us. 

* * * *
Volunteer! Network with colleagues! Develop professional strengths, add to…

Continue Reading State & Local Govt Law Section Is Looking For Leaders

Here’s the latest case in an issue we’ve been tracking, whether takings plaintiffs who bring major claims for just compensation against the federal government must do so in the Article I Court of Federal Claims, or can bring the claim in an Article III district court. The Sixth Circuit recently held that the feds have sovereign immunity, and have only consented to be sued in the CFC. That court also held that there’s no right to jury trial on a takings claim against the feds. [See 7/24/2017 update, below]

In Sammons v. United States, No. 17-50201 (June 19, 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit effectively adopted that same reasoning. In a short opinion, it held that takings claims involve “public rights,” and therefore, Congress may validly assign adjudication of those rights to non-Article III courts. Like the Sixth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit panel rejected the…

Continue Reading Fifth Circuit: “the United States’s sovereign immunity can bar cases against it based on the Takings Clause”

IMG_20161029_140018
No sleeping under the bridges of Paris!

In Ada County Highway District v. Brooke View, No. 43452 (May 23, 2017), the Idaho Supreme Court held that construction damage caused by the Highway District to property adjacent to — but not part of — a road project for which it took property, was not covered in the condemnation case as damage caused “by reason of … the construction of the improvement.” During construction of the highway widening project, the county damaged a wall belonging to the condemnee. 

The court held that this type of damage was not part of the valuation case in eminent domain, but was covered by tort law. Thus, the property owner could not claim that the cost to repair the damage was part of just compensation and damage, but had to sue the county in a negligence action. The Idaho statute on which the property owner…

Continue Reading Idaho: You Aren’t Special, Just Because You Had Your Property Taken

Here’s the audio recording of the talk we gave to the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law’s Land Use Committee earlier today. (Some of you may note that in the intro we say the talk was on “June 17,” but since that’s tomorrow, we assume you understand that is just an error.)

The links to the cases and materials we mentioned in the talk are posted here. Continue Reading Recording – “Takings: Emerging Issues” ABA State & Local Government Law Section Talk

Update: the audio recording is posted here.

* * * *

Here are the links to the cases we mentioned in today’s ABA State and Local Government Law Section presentation, “Takings: Emerging Issues.”

The “Larger Parcel” In Regulatory Takings (and Eminent Domain)

Emerging Issues

…
Continue Reading Links From Today’s ABA Presentation – “Takings: Emerging Issues”

A quick one from the Virginia Supreme Court, on pleading inverse condemnation in flooding cases. Or in any inverse case, actually.

In AGCS Marine Insurance Co. v. Arlington County, No. 1160221 (June 15, 2017), the court held that the insurance company (which paid off the property owner after a county sewer line flooded its store, and exercised its subrogation rights by bringing an inverse claim against the county) initially didn’t plead the claim adequately. But its proposed amended complaint fixed the pleading defects and made out a valid claim.

The case started when a county sewer line backed up, which caused raw sewage to flow into a neighboring grocery store. The insurance company paid the policy limits, and brought suit against the county. Here’s how the plaintiff initially pleaded the inverse claim:

The original complaint stated that the sewer line and the sewage treatment plant for the sewer line “were…

Continue Reading Virginia SCT Clarifies How To Plead A Flooding Inverse Condemnation Claim