2022

Its deja vu all over again: like it did just a short while back, in Lafave v. City of New Orleans, No. 21-30358 (June 1, 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit once again has rejected a takings claims “based on the city’s failure to honor a judgment of the Louisiana state courts.” Slip op. at 1.

Unlike the previous case, here the judgment being dishonored was not for just compensation, but a state court order that “call[ed] for the return of personal property acquired by the government unlawfully.” Id.

Here’s the story. New Orleans likes traffic cameras, and “used mail to collect fines for traffic violations captured by street cameras.” A class action lawsuit challenged the scheme, and eventually a Louisiana court determined the city lacked the authority to designate the Department of Public Works (and not the police department) as the enforcement authority.

Continue Reading The Keepings Clause: CA5 (Again) Throws Up Its Hands When Local Gov Refuses To Pay Back Money It Owes

IMG_20170801_132241

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.

A Utah statute requires that if a condemnor doesn’t actually use property it acquired “under a threat of condemnation,” it must try and sell it back to the (former) owner. The statute defines “threat of condemnation” as when “an official body of the state or a subdivision of the state, having the power of eminent domain, has specifically authorized the use of eminent domain to acquire the real property.” 

So what does “specifically authorized” mean? The Utah Court of Appeals held it means only when the potential condemnor takes a “final vote” and actually and finally “approves the use of eminent domain powers.”

In Cardiff Wales, LLC v. Washington County School District, No. 20210221 (May 26, 2022), however, the Utah Supreme Court disagreed, concluding it means any specific threat to take. The condemnor must do something more than indicate…

Continue Reading Utah: Sale “Under Threat Of Condemnation” Means Only A “Specific Threat To Take,” Not That Govt Authorized Condemnation Lawsuit

On one hand, there’s nothing terribly surprising about the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Hlavinka v. HSC Pipeline Partnership, LLC, No. 20-0567 (May 27, 2022) holding that yes, “polymer-grade propylene” qualifies as an “oil product” under Texas statutes that allow a private pipeline company to take property to transport oil products, and that yes, a private pipeline counts as a public use. After all, the first sentence of the opinion sets the context for those of you who may not realize how important the energy industry is to that state:

Recognizing the important role that pipeline development plays in meeting our state’s manufacturing and energy needs, the Legislature grants common carriers the right to condemn private property for the construction of pipelines that transport certain products.

Slip op. at 1.

But on the other hand, the very last portion of the opinion gives a hint that maybe the court…

Continue Reading Texas: At Least One Customer Is Served So Pipeline Is A Public Purpose, But Let’s Loosen Valuation Rules For Energy Corridors

A “fish” need not be “connected to a marine habitat” after all.

You remember that classic lawyer joke?

A company is on the hunt for a new CEO and decides to undertake the search from within existing management. The hiring committee schedules interviews with the company engineer, the company accountant, and the company lawyer. The committee calls each candidate into the boardroom and asks a single question: “what is two-plus-two?”

First up, the engineer. After doing calculations on a slide rule [this is an older joke, you see] and scratching figures and equations with a pencil and paper, the engineer proclaims, “What is two-plus-two? I can say with a 99% level of certainty that two-plus-two is 4, out to the fourth decimal place.”

Same question to the accountant, who after consulting the actuarial tables, the IRS’s schedules for mileage reimbursement, and the latest interest rates, responds, “What is two-plus-two?

Continue Reading Cal App Channels Dickens’ Mr. Bumble: Bumblebees Are Fish Under Cal’s Endangered Species Act

Austinairport

Here’s what we’re reading today:

Continue Reading Tuesday Round-Up: Austin Airport Taking Its Own Land?, The Right To Exclude, And More

Here’s one we’ve been following since its inception, even before we joined the law firm that represents the property owner. (And because our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues are repping the plaintiffs in this one, we won’t be commenting in-depth.)

You may remember that in Gunderson v. Indiana, 90 N.E.3d 171 (Ind. 2018), the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that the public owns the land up to the ordinary high water mark on Lake Michigan, and had done so all the way back to statehood in 1816. Problem is, according to some lakefront property owners, “undisputed local, state, and federal acknowledgement over the years” was otherwise – the law said that lakefront land was was private, not public, down to the ordinary low water mark. Thus, the plaintiffs alleged, “the Gunderson judgment changed the law of the State of Indiana, as recognized by prior Indiana court precedent as well…

Continue Reading CA7: Like Other Circuits, We’re Going To Dodge The Judicial Takings Question

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Nowlin v. Pritzker, No. 21-1279 (May 20, 2022), adds to a long line of rulings denying takings claims for coronavirus-related business shutdowns. 

This one challenged the Illinois governor’s executive orders which required “non-essential” businesses to shut down or reduce operations, and limited the size of gatherings. The plaintiffs brought the usual host of constitutional claims (a total of six), which included (naturally) a takings claim. The district court, after granting leave to allow the filing of an amended complaint, dismissed all six claims, concluding either that the plaintiffs had not alleged particularized injuries (and thus lacked standing, and thus the court lacked jurisdiction), or that the complaint failed to state claims.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed that all claims, with the exception of the takings claims, lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had not alleged specific injuries. The court subject…

Continue Reading CA7: Co-19 Shutdown Complaint Does Not Meet “Demanding test for alleging a regulatory taking”

In FTB Everett Realty, LLC v. Mass. Gaming Comm’n, No. SJC-13196 (May 23, 2022), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court revived a property owner’s Penn Central takings claim, reversing the trial court grant of summary judgment to the Commission.

This one deals with the intricacies of gambling law and the process necessary to approve the operation of a casino — subjects that we can’t claim to fully understand — so bear with us if there are any inaccuracies.

FBT purchased vacant land which was contaminated and required extensive cleanup. It looked into a variety of possible uses, including a storage facility or big box retain. But two years later, Massachusetts legalized casino gambling and created the Commission. Its duties include issuing gambling licenses.

A branch of the Wynn casino operation wanted the property. It entered into an option agreement with FBT under which it would buy the land if Wynn…

Continue Reading Mass SJC Revives Penn Central Takings Claim Because Casino Comm’n Might Have Altered The Deal

Here’s a pretty rare one: a trial court entering summary judgment on liability in favor of the property owner in a takings case. Yes, you read that right.

And to top it off, this ruling comes in a case in which the taking alleged was a police invasion and destruction of a home for the valid public purpose of apprehending a holed-up criminal, a brand of claim that has not met with a whole lot of success. See, for example, this case from the Tenth Circuit, and this case from the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

In this order, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas held the City of McKinney liable for a physical taking. The entire order is worth reading, but here are some of the highlights.

…
Continue Reading District Court: City Liable For Physical Taking For Destroying Home While Apprehending A Criminal

Screenshot 2022-05-13 at 14-45-41 The Impact of Knick on Regulatory Takings and Those Pesky Lucas Exceptions - Property

Check this out: Pepperdine lawprof Shelley Saxer has a piece in Jotwell, “The Impact of Knick on Regulatory Takings and Those Pesky Lucas Exceptions,” a review of U. Hawaii lawprof David Callies’ book, “Regulatory Takings After Knick.”

The review is short and to the point, so we suggest you read it. But here’s a teaser:

This small but mighty book offers a concise history and understanding of takings jurisprudence as it stood before and after the Knick decision. It brings clarity to a convoluted chronicle of takings litigation and presents specific situations where litigants have asserted a total taking claim and the defense has relied on the various exceptions to Lucas.

Don’t miss it.Continue Reading Lawprof Saxer On Jotwell: “The Impact of Knick on Regulatory Takings and Those Pesky Lucas Exceptions”