2024

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

Check out the North Carolina Court of Appeals opinion in North Carolina Bar and Tavern Ass’n v. Cooper, No. COA22-725 (Apr. 16, 2024).

We’re not going to go into great detail, mostly because this one tracks the most common judicial approach to takings challenges to business shut-down orders during the Co-19 period. The court concluded that the State’s selective shut down of certain bars but not others was neither an “emergency commandeering” under North Carolina’s emergency response statute, not a physical, Lucas, or Penn Central taking. Read the opinion for the reasons why.

But there is more than one way to skin that cat. The court held that the trial court should not have rejected the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its North Carolina’s Fruits of Labor Clause claim.

That provision states:

We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed…

Continue Reading Blinded Me With Science! No Taking For Selective Co-19 Business Shut-Down, But Might Violate North Carolina’s Fruits Of Labor Clause

This is one we’ve been meaning to post for a while, but something else always seemed to intervene.

In BMG Monroe I, LLC v. Village of Monroe, No. 22-1047 (Feb. 16, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a statutory and constitutional challenge to the Village’s .

The court did so on the basis of the surviving part of the Williamson County ripeness requirement, that the government has taken a definitive position on whether it will allow some development of the plaintiff’s land under the challenged regulations.

BMG wanted to build 181 homes, so it developed plans for a mix of uses across several parcels, and development of related infrastructure like roads and a community center. This “did not conform to the zoning codes of the Village and Town.” Slip op. at 4. The Village and Town were ok with the proposal…

Continue Reading CA2: If You Want To Be A Land Use Player, You Gotta Play (And That Means Keep On Trying – Without Hitching Rides)!

PXL_20240422_045016733.MP
There are some rewards for working late in the 808

Yesterday was the last day of instruction for the Spring 2024 semester at the University of Hawaii Law School. Did these last few months ever go by fast. 

A big thank you to Professor Mark M. Murakami, with whom I guest-lectured at the Old School (both of us earned our JD’s at the Law School) over the semester, on such topics as Euclid, vested rights and development agreements, and of course limitations on the police power such as takings.

Although our students have another couple of weeks to finish up with their final papers, we can say with certainty that the future of Hawaii land use law is in good hands. We had some very intriguing and educational discussions over the past few months. 

PXL_20230426_222214630

Law of the Splintered Paddle

PXL_20240423_050055849.MP       
Old School chalkboards remain in some of the classrooms. …

Continue Reading Aloha To Another Semester Of U. Hawaii Land Use

Here’s the latest, a cert petition where the property owners are represented by Michael Berger.  

We’re not going to be saying too much here, because a Berger cert petition certainly doesn’t need any furter explication by us. And, our firm is going to be filing an amicus brief, urging the Court to take up this case (so this is going to be one of our cases, too).

Here are the Questions Presented:

Petitioners’ predecessors sold an easement to the United States in order to preserve the land’s environmental character and to permit members of the public to use the easement as a trail. The property was unimproved and the grantors expected it to remain that way. When the property owners learned that the government intended to build a paved road instead, they sued. The trial court held that they waited too long and granted summary judgment to the…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Tolling Statutes Of Limitations; Are Equitable Remedies Available For Takings?

Screenshot 2024-04-24 at 10-12-17 VICTORY Breaking Down the Supreme Court Ruling on Permit Fees

Be sure to join our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues Brian Hodges and Larry Salzman, and Paul Beard (arguing counsel) and Chance Weldon (Texas Public Policy Foundation) tomorrow, Thursday, April 25, 2024, at 4pm ET for a free webinar on Sheetz v. El Dorado County, the Supreme Court’s recent decision holding that all permit conditions are subject to the nexus and proportionality tests of Nollan and Dolan.

Here’s the description:

Pacific Legal Foundation just won its 18th Supreme Court victory! Join us for a virtual discussion to learn more about the case, Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, and how it helps secure property rights (and lower housing costs) for everyone. 

When George Sheetz wanted to build a modest manufactured home on the property he bought in El Dorado Country, California, the government told him he was going to have to pay a “traffic impact fee” of more than

…
Continue Reading “Breaking Down the Supreme Court Ruling on Permit Fees” (Thursday, Apr. 25, 2024, 4pm ET/1pm PT)

As we noted here (“SCOTUS Denies Review To Remaining Rent Control Takings Petitions: “Important and pressing question” (Just Not In This Case)“), a small silver lining in the Court declining review was the statement of Justice Thomas accompanying the denial, where he noted the issue is an “important question,” and set out a rough roadmap to future challenges.

Here’s a cert petition which asserts this is the case to take up the issue. Here’s the Question Presented:

New York’s Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 transforms a temporary rent- regulation system into a permanent expropriation of vast swaths of private real estate, without just compensation, in the name of “affordable housing.” Among other things, the Act prohibits owners—even of small and midsized apartment buildings like Petitioners—from reclaiming rental units for their own personal use, and grants tenants a collective veto right over condo/co-op conversions. As Justice…

Continue Reading We Heard You, Justice Thomas: NY Property Owners File New Takings Cert Petition Challenging Rent Control

Our friends Kristen and Dave at the Infrastructure Junkies Podcast are doing what we hoped they would: they’ve convinced Clint Schumacher to appear as a guest and reflect on his Eminent Domain Podcast, which has produced its final episode:

The popular Eminent Domain Podcast signed off after a successful six year run. The Eminent Domain Podcast’s host, Texas attorney Clint Schumacher, joins the Infrastructure Junkies to reflect upon his show, his experiences, and all that he learned from being the pioneer podcast for the eminent domain industry. Listen in while Clint is on the business end of a rough cross examination!

It’s great to hear Clint one more time. Be sure to listen!Continue Reading A Must-Listen Infrastructure Junkies Podcast: “Curtain Call for the Eminent Domain Podcast!”

Gorsuch concurring

Note: this is the second of our posts on the recent Supreme Court opinions in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the case in which the unanimous Court held that exactions imposed by legislation are not exempt from the essential nexus (Nollan) and rough proportionality (Dolan) standards. Here’s our first post, which covers the case and the main opinion (“Sheetz pt. I – ‘Radical Agreement’ At SCOTUS: ‘Your Money Or Your Rights’ Isn’t OK Just Because A Legislature Does It“).

[Disclosure: this case is one of ours.]

In this post, we cover the three very short concurring opinions.

* * * *

The Court took no position on whether the County’s traffic impact fee has an essential nexus to the Sheetz development, or whether $23 grand is roughly proportional to any traffic his proposal might be responsible for. For this and more…

Continue Reading Sheetz pt. II: The Concurrences – Does Nollan/Dolan Operate Differently When Exaction Affects A Class?