May 2024

If you ever wanted a primer on the sometimes-confusing and seemingly arcane world of Rails-to-Trails takings cases, you would be hard-pressed to find a better example of the substantive law and the procedures in these cases than the Court of Federal Claims opinion in Nicholson v. United States , No. 23-843 (Mar. 13, 2024).

There’s nothing particularly outrageous about this case, but that’s one of the reasons why we appreciate the time that Judge Tapp put into the opinion (and the effort our colleagues Lindsay Brinton and Meghan Largent put into the case). 

Here’s how the opinion starts off:

“There is a pleasure in the pathless woods[.]” Yet for the Hyatt and Nicholson Plaintiffs (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), that pleasure was replaced with the pain of usurped property rights. Tn its pursuit of public amenities, the United States transformed Plaintiffs’ land previously burdened by an unused railway into a

Continue Reading A CFC Primer On Rails-to-Trails Takings

Here’s one we’ve been meaning to post for a while, the Ontario (Canada) Land Tribunal’s opinion in 13538 Ontario Inc. v. City of Stratford, No. OLF-22-002455 (Jan. 11, 2024), where the court resolved a dispute between the parties in an expropriation (eminent domain) case over which owed the other costs. 

Now that isn’t our area of expertise at all, but we were intrigued after our Toronto colleagues Shane Rayman and Conner Harris sent it our way.

The matter before the Tribunal was the penultimate chapter in an interminable legal battle, of nearly Dickensian proportions, relating to the expropriation by the City of Stratford (“City”) of the lands of the historic Grand Trunk Railroad Repair Shops. This tale features a hard fought legal battle over many years, a monstrous narrative with many subplots, the tragic death of the central protagonist whose vision for the Cooper site never came to fruition

Continue Reading Canadian Court Resolves A Very Un-Canadian Expropriation Beef

Check out Texas State Library and Archives Comm’n v. Westmoreland, No. 03-22-00276 (Mar. 22, 2024), where the Texas Court of Appeals (Third District) rejected a claims of a putative owner of a letter that the State of Texas asserting that it owns the letter would be a taking.

Westmoreland possesses a historic letter, and offered it to the Commission for sale. Instead of negotiating, the Commission claimed that the letter is a “state record” that had at some point in the past been purloined from the State. We’re not going to buy from you what is already ours!

The Commission sued. Westmoreland brought counterclaims, including, inter alia, for a taking because “the Commission has clouded his ownership of the Letter by filing the present lawsuit[.]” Slip op. at 5. The commission’s lawsuit challenges Westmoreland’s ownership, and does not raise takings concerns:

[T]he Commission, through its lawsuit, seeks a

Continue Reading Tex App: A Fight Over Who Owns A Historic Letter Isn’t A Takings Problem