42 U.S.C. § 1983 | Civil Rights

Subscribe to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | Civil Rights via RSS

We would not have guessed back in March when we posted the “first” coronavirus shut down takings complaint that we’d still be at it at the end of 2020, but here we are.

The latest is this complaint filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against Oregon’s governor (in her official capacity), the City of Portland, and Multnomah County, asserting that “several provisions of law, including state statutes, executive orders, and municipal ordinances that, taken together, significantly impair Plaintiffs’ rental contracts and amount to per se takings and unreasonable seizures of Plaintiffs’ property for a public purpose without just compensation.” Complaint at 2.

The laws referred to are a series of state and municipal statutes and ordinances that establish and enforce a moratorium on termination of tenancies. Rather than go into details, we recommend you read the complaint (it’s not one of those massive …

Continue Reading New Complaint: Oregon’s Eviction Moratorium Extension Is A Taking

We’re taking a slight detour today from our usual fare, to cover a case in which we represented the petitioner that involves effective assistance of counsel. Appellate counsel. It’s a post-conviction relief case and not takings, but if you are interested in appellate practice, read on.

In Villados v. State of Hawaii, No. SCWC-15-0000111 (Dec. 9, 2020), the unanimous court confirmed that “a criminal defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel on certiorari review” to the Hawaii Supreme Court. slip op. at 2.

The petitioner was convicted by a Maui trial court, and the court of appeals affirmed the conviction. His court-appointed appellate attorney first declined to seek discretionary certiorari review in the Hawaii Supreme Court, but later changed her mind and informed the petitioner that she would file a writ. But she did not do so within the thirty days allowed by statute. The petitioner, acting…

Continue Reading Sidebar: Hawaii Supreme Court And Ineffective Assistance Of Appellate Counsel

Property book cover image

Each spring, we do a smaller course at the William and Mary Law School (known as a “Directed Reading”) that focuses on some interesting property issue. The class reads a book and uses it as a springboard for discussion.

No exam, no paper, just an exploration of the issues as a way about thinking about property more deeply. The format is kind of like a property nerd book club. Read a chapter, discuss; etc. Our Spring 2020 book was Sean Wilentz’s “No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation’s Founding,” and the 2019 book was Howard Mansfield’s “The Habit of Turning the World Upside Down: Our Belief in Property and the Cost of That Belief.”

This upcoming semester we’re reading Professor Bart Wilson’s newly-published “The Property Species – Mine, Yours, and Human Mind.”

What is property, and why does our species have…

Continue Reading Property Nerd Book Club: This Spring’s Directed Reading – “The Property Species: Mine, Yours, and the Human Mind” (Come, Join In!)

Screenshot_2020-11-05 Legal challenges regarding COVID-19 emergency orders

Join us next Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at 3pm ET (12 noon Pacific) for the free webinar “Shutdowns, Closures, Moratoria, and Bans,” produced by Pacific Legal Foundation and Owners’ Counsel of America.

Along with my colleagues Leslie Fields (Executive Director, OCA), and Jim Burling (PLF), I’ll be talking about the legal foundations for objections, some of the cases that have made their way to decision, and what the future might look like. To register (did I mention it was free?) go here.

Here’s the program description:

Governors and state legislatures across the country have implemented an array of policies in an attempt to contain the virus and its socioeconomic impacts. Many of these policies broadened the scope of government power while placing a heavy burden on property owners and businesses already struggling with the pandemic.

Join representatives from Pacific Legal Foundation and Owners’ Counsel of America as…

Continue Reading Join Us: Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2020 (3pm ET, 12n PT) For Free (!) Webinar: “Shutdowns, Closures, Moratoria, and Bans”

Bk_2020_02_475

In case you missed any part of it: the recordings of the recent 2020 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference are now available.

Go here for the descriptions of the panels, speakers, and links to the recorded sessions.

This year’s conference, held on October 1-2, opened with the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize being awarded to Professor Henry E. Smith of Harvard Law School. The prize is named in honor of the lifetime contributions of Toby Prince Brigham, founding partner of Brigham Moore, LLP, and Gideon Kanner, professor of law emeritus at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, and is presented annually to a scholar, practitioner or jurist whose work affirms the fundamental importance of property rights.

Topics covered: “Where Theory Meets Practice: A Tribute to Henry E. Smith,” “The Housing Crisis,” “Emerging Issues in Takings and Eminent Domain Law,” “The Reach of Government’s Confiscatory Powers over Exigencies and Emergencies,” and “The…

Continue Reading Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Videos Now Available

After Knick knocked out the “state procedures” requirement of the Williamson County ripeness doctrine, we predicted that owners’ lawyers better dust off their Federal Courts treatises that have been sitting on our bookshelves for the last three decades.

We said that because we suspected the game was still afoot, and Knick alone would not overcome that old trope of federal judges: “we are the big leagues and not super zoning boards of appealssuper monkey selfie determiners, but heaven forbid they address so “local” a topic as property. That is why it seems that the federal courts go out of their way to dodge takings and property questions.

Thus, abstention in its many forms is becoming the new Williamson County. If that doesn’t ring your bell, remember that under Pullman, a federal court will hold off on exercising its jurisdiction because the resolution of unsettled questions of state law…

Continue Reading Abstention, Pullman And Otherwise: The New Williamson County

Callies Book Launch Invitation Announcement_Page_1

Come join us for the book party for Professor David Callies’ recently published (by the ABA State and Local Government Law Section) book, “Regulatory Takings After Knick.”

We’re online (of course), so you don’t have to come to Honolulu – we’re on Zoom:

Date: Thursday, October 29, 2020

Time: 4-5pm Hawaii Time

RSVP: No need to RSVP, just follow the Zoom link on the flyer below.

Is joining at 4pm Hawaii Time too late in the day in your time zone? We will be scheduling a “pre-event” on Zoom where you can record your video congratulations for Professor Callies. Details to be posted here shortly, or email us.

And yes, buy this book. As the back cover blurb notes:

The problem with so much regulatory takings scholarship — like the Supreme Court’s takings doctrine itself — is that it is muddled and murky, and casts shadow…

Continue Reading You’re Invited: Book Launch For “Regulatory Takings After Knick” (David Callies), Oct. 29, 2020

We all know that despite the heightened Twombly/Iqbal federal pleadings standard, that it doesn’t mean a whole lot if a complaint survives a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. All this means that the court thinks it is plausible that the complaint states a claim. And that the plaintiff gets to keep going. That’s it.

But when takings claims are involved, we also know that courts can be dismissive, and a property owner surviving a motion to dismiss can be kind of a big deal.

In Hunters Capital LLC v. City of Seattle, No. C20-983 (Oct. 16, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the plaintiffs’ equal protection claims, but held that the procedural and substantive due process, and takings claims survived. This is the case on which we posted earlier, in which property owners in the part of Seattle known as CHOP (or…

Continue Reading Federal Court: If It’s True That Seattle Provided Material Support To CHOP/CHAZ, That Could Be A Taking

Check this out, a recent case on the Uniform Relocation Act from the Ohio Supreme Court. Does it conflict with a decision that goes the other way from the West Virginia Supreme Court, or is it consistent with a South Dakota decision (cert. denied in that one, by the way)? Read on and find out.

In State ex rel. New Wen Inc. v. Marchbanks, No. 2017-0813 (Oct. 14, 2020), the property owner prevailed on an inverse condemnation case in the Ohio Supreme Court. (Well, not technically an “inverse condemnation” case because Ohio doesn’t recognize such a claim when a government action has de facto taken property; instead, the property owner applies to the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the government to institute eminent domain.) But no matter – the property owner (a Wendy’s restaurant) won its takings case in the Ohio Supreme…

Continue Reading Ohio: Uniform Relocation Act Doesn’t Require Fee-Shifting For Inverse Cases (Lower Court Split Alert?)

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. In this Order, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc of the 2-1 panel decision in Pakdel v. City & County of San Francisco, No. 17-17504 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2020).

Earlier, the panel concluded that a regulatory takings case was not ripe under Williamson County‘s requirement. Recall that in Knick, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the first Williamson County ripeness hurdle — the requirement that a property owner first pursue and be denied just compensation via “state procedures” — but the Court didn’t consider or disturb the “final decision” requirement.

The Pakdels sued San Francisco for a regulatory taking because of the city’s requirement that as a condition of converting a tenancy-in-common to a condominium, the owners must first offer any tenant a lifetime lease. The Pakdel’s twice requested exemptions from the lifetime …

Continue Reading Certworthiness Alert: 2-1 CA9 En Banc Denial (And 9 Judge Dissental) – Is A Takings Claim Forever Unripe Because The Owner In The Past Didn’t Jump Through All Administrative Hoops?