Eminent Domain | Condemnation

Subscribe to Eminent Domain | Condemnation via RSS

We listened live last week, but the court has now made the recording available in Johnson v. City of Suffolk.

This is what we call the “oyster takings” case in which Nansemond River oystermen claim that their property was taken when the City of Suffolk and the Sanitation District dumped sewage into the river and declared a “condemnation zone” (i.e., no oyster harvesting).

This is a case at the intersection of property and takings law, and environmental protection. And the public trust concept of jus publicum. The oystermen own a lease from the State of Virginia for the riverbed, which among other things, allows them to harvest some of the oysters that Virginia is so well known for. But they were forced to bring an inverse condemnation claim in state court, asserting that the City’s dumping of wastewater in the river — and prohibiting the…

Continue Reading Recording Now Available In Virginia Supreme Court Oral Arguments In Takings, Property, And Public Trust Case

The docket is pretty crowded today, so we don’t have that much time to digest and summarize the Nebraska Supreme Court’s opinion in Douglas County School Dist. No. 10 v. Tribedo, LLC, No. S-19-986 (Nov. 6, 2020). But we recommend you read it (or at least scan it).

Short story: Tribedo got the better of the School District at an eminent domain valuation trial on a partial taking. Although Tribedo’s appraiser opined to a higher figure, the jury was closer to his number than the District’s expert’s. So the District appealed, arguing the trial court wrongly rejected the District’s jury instruction, and that the jury’s verdict — which included severance damages — was not supported by the evidence because neither party’s expert specifically opined about severance damages.

As we know, both of these are hard hills to climb. And sure enough, the Supreme Court rejected both arguments. First, it…

Continue Reading Nebraska: Condemnor Asking To Overturn Jury’s Compensation Verdict For (Alleged) Evidentiary Errors Asks Too Much

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”

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following even before its inception (last semester, our William and Mary class visited the site and witnessed the oyster operation affected – see video above), Johnson v. City of Suffolk.

This morning, the Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, and we livestreamed it during our class. (We can’t post the audio recording just yet; those are released on Fridays, so hold on just a bit longer if you missed the live event.)

This is what we call the “oyster takings” case in which Nansemond River oystermen claim that their property was taken when the City of Suffolk and the Sanitation District dumped sewage into the river and declared a “condemnation zone” (i.e., no oyster harvesting).

This is a case at the intersection of property and takings law, and environmental protection. And the public trust concept of…

Continue Reading Virginia Supreme Court Oral Arguments In Takings, Property, And Public Trust Case

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

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

When an opinion starts off with “[t]his case offers a feast of legal issues – ranging from procedural to constitutional – but its main course is a cautionary tale to government entities: they must follow the exact statutory requirements for bringing a condemnation action[,]” you just know that you have to read the entire thing.

That’s exactly what we recommend with the Utah Court of Appeals’ opinion in Salt Lake City Corp. v. Kunz, No. 20190010-CA (Oct. 16, 2020). The court concluded that when a statute requires that a condemnor provide the property owner with at least 10 days written notice and an opportunity to be heard before the condemnor takes a final vote to approve exercising eminent domain, “substantial compliance” isn’t sufficient. We make this recommendation that although this sort of statutory requirement is quite common — as are examples of condemning agencies not strictly adhering to…

Continue Reading Utah App: “All bets are off for any actions other than exactness.” Close Enough Isn’t Good Enough In Condemnation – When The Statute Requires Notice To Property Owners Within 10 Days, It Means 10 Days

Untitled Extract Pages

Check this out, a quick read from our New Orleans colleague Randy Smith, his article from the current edition of the Louisiana Bar Journal, “Nailing Down Knick and Governmental Takings in Louisiana.“

Therein, he tells the story (inter alia) of Violet Dock Port (see here and here for two of our many posts on the case), and the efforts of the owner to secure compensation. The latest twist is that although the Louisiana courts adjudicated the amount of compensation owed (based on replacement cost), the condemnor (the Port of St. Bernard) didn’t pay up as ordered, and the U.S. District Court dismissed the owner’s § 1983 claim for a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Here’s how the article concludes:

Although Knick does not offer specific guidance regarding whether a property owners’ federal takings claim could take precedence over a previously-filed state court…

Continue Reading Randy Smith: “Nailing Down Knick and Governmental Takings in Louisiana”

You are here

We have looked through the entire judicial and scholarly oeuvre of SCOTUS nominee Judge Amy Barrett, who today is continuing to run the gauntlet of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Naturally, our scanners were searching for any of her decisions or writings that might give us some clue how a “Justice Barrett” might treat takings and property cases, should she make the squad.

Frankly, however, there isn’t much to hold onto. As our colleagues Bryan Wenter (“What Might Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Mean to Property Rights?“) and Mike Ryan (“7th Circuit Rules Construction of the Obama Presidential Center Is Not A Taking Under The Fifth Amendment“) have covered, there’s just one opinion she authored or joined in which takings was on the docket: a recent decision about the challenge to the Obama Center being erected in a Chicago public park, Protect Our Parks, Inc v. …

Continue Reading “Fidelity to the law means going where it leads, and sometimes it leads to the conclusion that a law is unconstitutional.” What Might A “Justice Barrett” Portend For Property Cases?

EjqLrfkWAAAB5QF

In between talking about eminent domain-y songs, the goofy cult film “Snakes on a Plane” (yes, we really do have a cast-signed poster of that film in our office), and other fun stuff, we returned to the Pendulum Land Podcast for part II of our guest spot, where we also discussed Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Commonwealth, No. CL15-623 (July 30, 2020), a recent decision from a Virginia trial court about regulatory takings and “damagings.” 

[Stream the podcast above, or better yet, subscribe and become a regular listener. The podcast is both entertaining and informative.]

The Virginia Uranium case involves a long-standing — but “temporary” — moratorium on uranium mining, and the court’s order analyzes Palazollo, the Salt-peter case (Lord Coke alert!), Penn Central, and Lucas.

The court concluded that the inability to mine uranium was a damaging under the Virginia Constitution because it “directly…

Continue Reading In Which We Return To The Pendulum Land Podcast To Talk “Snakes on a Plane,” Eminent Domain Songs, And What Might Be Virginia’s First True Regulatory Takings Case