Eminent Domain | Condemnation

Subscribe to Eminent Domain | Condemnation via RSS

Here’s what we’ve been reading today:

  • A Turning Point for Eminent Domain? – The NY Times “Room for Debate” forum posts the thoughts of six property law experts on the meaning of Pfizer’s decision to close its research headquarters in New London, Connecticut. New London, of course, was the epicenter of the public use case that became Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). Many of the comments are also worth perusing.

…
Continue Reading Friday Eminent Domain Round-Up

Today, my Damon Key colleagues Ken Kupchak, Mark Murakami, Matt Evans and I filed the Opening Brief in the latest phase of County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, two condemnation cases arising out of the County of Hawaii’s attempts to take a Kona family’s property. This brief addresses several issues, but the most critical involve pretext and public purpose, questions left open by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), but which were answered, in part, by the Hawaii Supreme Court in its opinion when these cases were first before the court last year. See County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 119 Haw. 352, 198 P.3d 615 (2008) (available here)

In that opinion, the court held that a property owner has a right to challenge the government’s assertion that a…

Continue Reading Opening Brief In Kona Eminent Domain Abuse Case: Pretext, Actual Purposes, And Private Benefit

In July 2009, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in System Components Corp. v. Florida Dep’t of Transportation,No. SC08-1507, which resolved resolved aconflict in the lower Florida courts regarding the application ofbusiness damages in a condemnation case under Florida Statutes § 73.071(3)(b).The court held that a business is not required to relocate as theresult of a partial taking, but if it chooses to do so, only the actualdamages suffered by the business are compensable, and “its businessdamages must be determined in light of its continued existence at itsnew location.” We summarized the opinion here.

Florida eminent domain attorney Carlos A. Kelly authors today’s post, an article about the meaning of the case.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What Does The Florida Supreme Court’s Ruling in System Components Corp. v. Florida Department of Transportation Mean?

Introduction

In System Components Corp. v. Florida Department of Transportation, 14 So.3d 967, 971 (Fla.

Continue Reading Guest Post: Carlos Kelly on What Does The Florida Supreme Court’s Ruling in System Components Corp. v. Florida Department of Transportation Mean?

Mark your calendars for Wednesday, November 18, 2009, from 2:00 – 3:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time). That’s when we will be having the next “recent developments” conference call for members of the Condemnation Law Committee (ABA Section of State & Local Government Law). It’s free, but open only to Section members. Members should receive an e-mail with the call information, either directly from the Section, or via our listserv (LG-CONDEMNATION). If you are not a member, see below.

These are informal calls to discuss recent developments, get feedback and advice about pending matters, and to otherwise exchange views.

As this is informal, the agenda is open. But we will be covering at least these topics:

…
Continue Reading Mark Your Calendars: ABA Condemnation Law Conference Call – November 18, 2009

On October 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in  Rumber v. District of Columbia, No. 09-7035, the appealchallenging an attempt to take a shopping center by the District of Columbia andthe National Capital Revitalization Corporation. We previewed the arguments and posted the briefs of the parties here.

The Blog of Legal Times reported on the arguments in D.C. Circuit Tries to Untangle Eminent Domain Battle, noting:

The D.C. Circuit judges—Chief Judge David Sentelle was sitting with Senior Judges Stephen Williams and A. Raymond Randolph—grappled with just how many plaintiffs are left in the suit. Sentelle, during oral argument, ordered both sides to submit supplemental briefs that address the status of the plaintiffs.

Read the entire article here.

Continue Reading Latest On Rumber v. DC

Here are some recently-released opinions; none so earth-shattering that they merit their own post, but definitely worth reading:

  • People ex rel. Dep’t of Transportation v. Acosta, No. C059064 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2009) – In an eminent domain case, the California Court of Appeals, Third District concludes that a claim for lost goodwill was not preempted by federal law (the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act).
  • River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, No. 08 C 950 (7th Cir., Oct. 27, 2009) – In a case involving a church’s claims that a rezoning violated RLUIPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of church’s motion for preliminary injunction because the “Church

…
Continue Reading Latest Interesting Opinions

Each summer, The Urban Lawyer (the ABA’s Section of State and Local Government Law‘s peer-reviewed law review), devotes an issue to recent developments in various areas of law. A subscription to the journal, which is published each quarter, is among the benefits of section membership. The just-published Summer 2009 issue includes my article on recent developments in public use and pretext in eminent domain, which I have creatively titled Recent Developments in Public Use and Pretext in Eminent Domain (43 Urban Lawyer 563 (2009)).

If that’s not descriptive enough, here’s a summary of the article:

The Supreme Court’s controversial 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London renewed both public and judicial interest in the contours of the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment and its counterparts in state constitutions. Courts began to take a harder look at how the government’s claim that property is being condemned…

Continue Reading New Article: Recent Developments in Public Use and Pretext in Eminent Domain

Remember a while back when we noted that a property owner has asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to review what we called a “Kafkaesque” decision by the Appellate Division which held that the government can assert inverse condemnation in order to take property without compensation?  See Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon, No. A-2963-07 (per curiam).

Well, we’re not alone.  The New Jersey Law Journal today published an editorial entitled “A Bizarre Condemnation.” It’s not available on-line except for subscribers, but we will note some of the key passages:

Rarely is there an appellate decision so bizarre that it leaves seasoned lawyers and laypersons alike shaking their heads in disbelief. It is a basic premise of constitutional law that the government may not take property without due process and just compensation. Yet according to Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon, 2009 WL 2341554 (July 31, 2009), a New Jersey…

Continue Reading “A Bizarre Condemnation”

Yesterday, the New York Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the latest case involving the controversial Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. We blogged the arguments as we followed along on the live video feed (video archived here).

According to the court’s web site, “[t]he Court normally decides cases within thirty to sixty days after the oral argument date,” so we should be seeing the outcome relatively quickly.  

Here are selected reports on the arguments and the issues in the case:

…
Continue Reading Atlantic Yards Oral Argument Media (And Other) Reports
Launch in external player

Missed the live blog and video of the oral arguments in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp., the latest case involving the controversial Atlantic Yards development and Kelo-like claims of eminent domain abuse in an economic development taking? 

Well, you’re in luck — the court has archived the video.

Launch the live blog and start the video at the same time and you can follow along with Timothy Sandefur, Mark Murakami, and me as we provide commentary.

To launch the video in a separate window, go here. Continue Reading Video Of Atlantic Yards Oral Arguments