Environmental law

Subscribe to Environmental law via RSS

13.EMDHI

Here are links to the cases and other materials (and more) we spoke about at today’s conference on Eminent Domain and Condemnation in Hawaii:

…
Continue Reading Materials From Today’s Eminent Domain In Hawaii Conference

Update: More here from the Star-Advertiser.

Courts, as “temples of justice” can be intimidating places, especially for the advocates who appear there. And when you make it a federal court, the level goes up. And when you are in a storied courthouse such as the Ninth Circuit’s headquarters in San Francisco surrounded by corinthian columns, cherub statues, and a ceiling full of stained glass, it certainly can be a heady experience.

Today was no different as a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in the federal environmental challenge to Honolulu’s multi-billion-dollar heavy rail project. The panel, comprised of Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Andrew Hurwitz, and Senior Judge Mary Schroeder, was “hot,” and for the most part kept firing questions at the three advocates over the course of the nearly hour-long arguments. As we noted in our initial post-argument report, the panel spent…

Continue Reading Some Further Thoughts About The 9th Circuit’s Oral Arguments In Honolulu Rail Appeal

20130815_153930

We just finished up with the oral arguments at the Ninth Circuit courthouse in San Francisco. We’ll have a more detailed report later today, but our initial reaction is that it looks like at least two of the three judges are very skeptical whether there was an appealable final order in the case, and thus may be ready to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. One judge seemed to understand and accept the appellants’ jurisdictional arguments, so if the court dismisses, we may see a dissent.

Of course, with appellate arguments it’s always a fool’s errand to predict the outcome based on oral argument (but that doesn’t stop us from doing it, does it?), so we may be totally off the mark. But when the court spends 95% of the time talking jurisdiction and not the merits, if you are the appellants’ lawyer, you must have your doubts.

More…

Continue Reading Honolulu Rail Federal Appeal: Dismissed For Lack Of Appellate Jurisdiction?

Here’s what we’re reading today:

  • Our Owners’ Counsel colleague from New Jersey, Anthony Della Pelle, has posted some thoughts on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent decision in Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan, No. 070512 (July 8, 2013). That’s the case about valuation issues when there’s a partial taking of littoral property in order to erect protective dunes. Tony’s thoughts are well worth reading. 
  • In that vein, on Wednesday, August 14, 2013, starting at noon ET, we’ll be joining Tony and other experts to speak at the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education’s teleseminar on “Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings:

…
Continue Reading Wednesday Round-Up: Koontz Recording, Jersey Shore Dunes, Plastic Bag Bans

What’s this, a federal court actually allowing a federal Fifth Amendment claim to be litigated in federal court? Why that’s as rare as hen’s teeth, although it shouldn’t be. 

That’s the ruling of the Fourth Circuit in Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head, No. 12-1538 (July 25, 2013), which reversed the district court’s dismissal of a takings claim under Williamson County. The court of appeals held that the Town’s removal of the case to federal court waived the state litigation Williamson County defense. Other courts have rejected the same tactic (property owner does what Williamson County requires and files its takings claim in state court, only to have the government remove the case to federal court under College of Surgeons, and then argue that the federal court should dismiss the case under Williamson County), but it’s nice to see a U.S. Court of Appeals…

Continue Reading 4th Cir: Town Waived Williamson County State Court Defense By Removing Case To Federal Court

This really was a “blockbuster” Term for the Supreme Court and takings law: no less than three cases (and four, maybe five, if you expand it slightly to include property-owner favorable cases such as Lozman and last term’s Sackett), and as Gideon Kanner noted recently, the CLE sessions are flying fast and furiously.

Here’s another one, with a great angle: our ABA colleague Ed Thomas, President of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Association and the guy who knows just about everything there is to know about disaster preparedness, disaster response, and property rights, is speaking tonight (Tuesday, July 16, 2013, 7:00 pm MT) along with BYU lawprof Lisa Grow Sun, about the Supreme Court’s takings cases:

This session will explore the legal landscape for community development and hazard mitigation/climate adaptation. Specifically, there has been tremendous press coverage of many U.S. Supreme Court decisions this term. One…

Continue Reading Today’s Free Webinar – Mitigation Options Affected by the Supreme Court in 2013: Koontz and Other Game Changers

Here’s one not to miss, not only because it’s free, but because it features our PLF colleague Paul Beard II, arguing and prevailing counsel in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgm’t Dist., No. 11-1447 (June 25, 2013): on Wednesday, July 17, 2013, from 2:00 – 3:30 pm ET, Greenberg Traurig and PLF are sponsoring a live chat:

In Koontz, one of the most important Takings Clause cases in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the doctrine of  unconstitutional conditions established in the Nollan and Dolan cases applies to all land use permit applications – even if the excessive condition leads to a permit denial, and even if the condition involves the payment of money rather than dedication of real property. This extension of Nollan/Dolan principles has far reaching implications for real estate, environmental, and other federal and state permitting actions. The significance and implications…

Continue Reading Upcoming Live Chat: Koontz – How Far Has Nollan/Dolan Been Extended

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013, from 4:00 – 5:30 pm ET, I will be a panelist in the American Planning Association’s above-titled teleconference.  The session was put together by our ABA and OCA colleague Dwight Merriam, and in additon to Dwight and me, includes Professors David Callies (U. Hawaii) and Carol Brown (U. Richmond), John Baker, an attorney with Greene Espell in Minneapolis, and our ABA colleage and fellow U. Hawaii alum Julie Tappendorf.

Here’s the description of the program:

The U.S. Supreme Court ended its term with a decision that will change planning and regulation — but by how much, and will the change be for better or worse? Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District is the most important planning law case in nearly a decade, and already there is widespread disagreement about what it means.

A diverse panel of land use lawyers will examine…

Continue Reading Upcoming Teleconference: Lessons from Koontz – Game Changer or Just a Little Rule Refinement?

Here’s the amicus brief filed today by Pacific Legal Foundation in Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (cert. petition filed June 5, 2013).

That’s the case in which the Supreme Court is being asked to review to review the Federal Circuit’s unpublished opinion in which the court affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ grant of summary judgment to the government, holding that Mehaffy failed the Penn Central test solely because he purchased the property alleged to have been taken after the governmentt adopted the Clean Water Act.

PLF has posted a more in-depth summary of the case and the arguments in its brief here.

The cert petition is posted here, and another amici brief urging the Court to grant the writ is posted here.

Brief Amicus Curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner, Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-…


Continue Reading One More Amicus Brief In “Investment-Backed Expectations” Case: Can’t Regulate Away Right To Compensation

Generally, we don’t plug seminars that might compete with our own, but in this case, we made an exception because the faculty for this one consists of three people we could just not go without hearing from.

On Thursday, July 11, 2013, Law Seminars International is sponsoring “Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District – Implications for Property Owners and Local Government,” featuring our Owners’ Counsel of America colleagues Michael Berger and Amy Brigham Boulris, and our favorite foil, lawprof John Echeverria, as they “assess the implications of this important decision and provide practical guidance for both defending and pursuing regulatory takings claims.”

Here’s what we suggest: participate in their program on July 11, then tune into ours (which features both Koontz and Horne) the following day. Continue Reading Koontz Teleconference – July 11, 2013