Eminent Domain | Condemnation

Subscribe to Eminent Domain | Condemnation via RSS

Here’s a case about eminent domain and pipelines, but which focuses more on the court’s jurisdiction than on the eminent domain aspects.

In Ameren Transmission Co. of Illinois v. Hutchings, No. 122973 (Oct. 18, 2018), the Illinois Supreme Court held that Illinois circuit courts — that state’s courts of general jurisdiction — do not have jurisdiction to consider property owners’ procedural due process defenses in an eminent domain action. Instead, if they had earlier challenged the certificate of public convenience in administrative proceedings and raised the due process argument there, their only avenue of judicial review was in the Illinois court of appeals. 

Here’s the short story: Ameren filed eminent domain actions in Illinois circuit court to condemn rights of way for an energy line. As a precursor to that, Ameren sought certificates of public convenience from the Illinois Commerce Commission. The Commission sent notice of the route to…

Continue Reading Illinois Trial Courts Can Hear Eminent Domain Cases, But Not Defenses To Eminent Domain Cases

Would you pay, say $10 for an undeveloped Maui beachfront parcel that is zoned for hotel and residential purposes, but currently is not developable because the County in the past wanted to condemn the land and turn it into a public park (but then ran out of money)?

In furtherance of its acquisition plan, the County changed the parcel’s Community Plan (known as a “general plan” in most jurisdictions) designation to “park.” But it never amended the Hotel zoning, which allows lesser intensive uses such as single-family homes. But then the County didn’t have enough money — beachfront property, it turns out, was (and is) a lot more spendy than the government appraisers thought — so it never actually acquired the land. But having downplanned the parcel in order to take it, it never bothered uplanning it when it couldn’t: the County never reverted the CP designation to its former…

Continue Reading New Amicus Brief In SCOTUS Hawaii Case: Takings Is About Denial Of *Use* Not Whether Property Has Value

Whatisthis

From Reno, Nevada colleague Steve Silva, comes this contribution to our growing collection of Knick/Williamson County-related memes.

Congratulations if you get this without having to do research. If so, you are a True Takings Nerd (and a nerd generally).

For those of you who are not quite getting it, here is the breakdown:

…
Continue Reading Friday Takings Fun: More Knick Memes

20181002_154246_HDR (1)

Last week, the 15th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference saw the gathering of legal scholars, judges, lawyers, and law students at the William and Mary Law School to award the B-K Property Rights Prize to Cardozo lawprof Stewart Sterk, followed by a day-long conference focusing on Professor Sterk’s work and the latest developments in property rights law.

Professor Sterk joins the pantheon of property law scholars (and a judge and a practitioner) who have been awarded the Prize. Pretty impressive:

WIN_20151002_13_15_51_Pro

As always, the program starts off with a candlelight dinner and award presentation in the historic Wren Building, definitely a highlight of the Conference. More about the Conference here. 

And there’s nothing like spending the following day addressing some of the most pressing issues in our area, along with the brightest minds in the business (below is the final panel of the day, with Professor John Echeverria…

Continue Reading 2018 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Report: Emerging Issues

IMG_2075

For the six-hour-plus roundtrip from Williamsburg to DC for last week’s SCOTUS oral arguments in Knick v. Township of Scott, the only assignment our class had — the ticket for the van ride, so to speak — was that each student was required to make two contributions to our day’s playlist. Otherwise, we’d be in for long stretches of possibly awkward small talk. 

The first, a good “road” song. Something to drive to. You know those kind of songs.

The second was a slightly tougher assignment: contribute at least one song that is somehow related to the nature of our class (Law 608: Eminent Domain and Property Rights Law). The contribution need not be directly related to our topic in that it was about eminent domain, property rights, takings, or the like. As long as there was some “hook,” and the contributor could make the connection…

Continue Reading Law 608’s Infinite Playlist: Takings-Related And Road Trip Songs

20181003_114518_HDR

Seeking A Cause of Action

It has been just under a century since the U.S. Supreme Court first recognized (in the modern era, that is) the regulatory takings doctrine. You might think that the intervening decades would be enough time to allow the Justices, collectively, to have figured out what a cause of action looks like. You know, just enough to get by a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Unfortunately, yesterday’s oral arguments in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (transcript here, and below), would not confirm that belief.

Our major impression from the argument is that no more than three Justices clearly understand the major difference between an affirmative exercise of the eminent domain power to take private property, and an inverse condemnation action in which a property owner asserts that the exercise of a power other than …

Continue Reading Oranges And Tangerines – The Difference Between Eminent Domain And Inverse Condemnation: Deconstructing The Knick Oral Arguments

20170918_192854

Just out of the Knick arguments. Full report to come later. But for now, these thoughts:

College of Surgeons – D.O.A. I think there’s a consensus to overrule the case to the extent it allows municipalities to remove takings cases to federal court. 

San Remo – On life support. I think also that there may be enough votes to overrule the Catch-22 aspects of that case and the preclusion/full faith and credit trap. 

Here’s the federal government’s position, in a nutshell:

2j7vra

Justice Kagan, like us, found that distinction hard to swallow. 

Justice Bryer quote of the day: “why not let sleeping dogs lie?” (Asking about stare decisis.)

As for the “big” issue of whether the Court will overrule Williamson County? Too close to call. We didn’t see an obvious majority forming around anything but overruling Chicago and San Remo. No Justice seemed to like Williamson County too much (except…

Continue Reading Meanwhile Back At 1 First Street … Hot Take On The Knick Arguments

6a00d83451707369e20223c85004e4200c-800wi

I’m not going to do an in-depth preview of tomorrow’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 for several reasons.

First, a lot of others have summarized the issues already, far better than I can. See the list below.

Second, I filed an amicus brief in the case in support of Ms. Knick, and that brief pretty much sums up my thinking about the case. Williamson County ripeness is something I’ve railed on for a while, and there’s no need for me to say it once again.

Finally, I’m attending the arguments tomorrow with my William and Mary Law class, (they get to see the sausage being made!) and am keeping my powder dry for a post-argument report from the scene. 

First, the previews, followed by some brief thoughts:

  • Read the merits and amici briefs (all 21 of them!) here 

…
Continue Reading Knick Preview: Reevaluating Williamson County Ripeness With An Eight-Justice Court – Just How Badly Can SCOTUS Screw Up Takings Law?

Louisiana

A very important public use case from the Louisiana Court of Appeals.

In Ryan v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, No. 17-00016 (Sep. 27, 2018), the court upheld a preliminary injunction issued by the trial court “barring the [Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal] District from expropriating a tract of [the Meyers’] property in Westlake Louisiana.” Slip op. at 1.

The map above shows the property (M & D Construction), and its proximity to what is known as the “Sasol Megaproject.” Barista’s note: it looks like the P.R. people didn’t get a hand in naming the project – when you name your chemical factory “the Megaproject,” you should probably not be surprised when there’s objection.

Sasol needs/wants Meyer’s five acres, and tried for several years to buy it. No deal. So the District adopted a resolution which provided “certain assurances with respect to the acquisition of the property needed” for the…

Continue Reading La App: I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends – When Condemnor Testifies That “were it not for [the benefited private project], the District would not have looked at acquiring,” A Property Owner Can Enjoin A Taking

Our colleague and co-planning chair Joe Waldo was in town yesterday, so we walked through historic Williamsburg, Virginia (cradle of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights), to invite you to join us for the 36th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (January 24-26, 2019, in Palm Springs, California).

As we wrote in this post, the Conference will feature the nation’s best eminent domain faculty, presenting on the topics we love.

Register now here. Early registration and group discounts available. The 2018 Conference in Charleston sold out, so be sure to sign up now so you don’t miss out. Continue Reading Join Us For The 36th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference In Palm Springs (Jan 24-26, 2019)