Inverse condemnation

Subscribe to Inverse condemnation via RSS

Mark your calendars for next Friday, January 25, 2013 from noon to 1:00 p.m. Pacific for “Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States: Practical Implications Of The Supreme Court’s Decision,” presented by Law Seminars International.

It’s a discussion of Arkansas Game, the decision in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government was not immune from liability for a taking when it was responsible for flooding, even if the flooding is temporary. They’ve assembled a great faculty, which includes arguing counsel for the prevailing petitioner James Goodhart. Also speaking will be takings litigator Nancie Marzulla and Washington Legal Foundation Chief Counsel Richard Samp. Here’s a description of the one-hour program:

On December 4, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, holding that when the federal government floods property, even temporarily, the Fifth…

Continue Reading Upcoming TeleBriefing On Takings Issues After Arkansas Game & Fish

In addition to our summary of and reaction to yesterday’s oral arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), here is the leading commentary from other sources:

  • Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog: “The very idea that an unconstitutional “taking” had occurred to an owner of a small plot of ground in Florida seemed near to vanishing, propelled toward oblivion by a spreading fear on the bench that maybe the entire regulatory apparatus of government might be at risk. Credit lawyers for a state agency and the federal government for deepening this anxiety.”
  • Greenwire‘s Lawrence Hurley: Supreme court: Justices weigh Fla. property rights dispute: “Rather than focus on the two Supreme Court precedents on permitting conditions, some justices seemed to agree with the Obama administration that, if Koontz did have a claim, it would be in the form of

…
Continue Reading The Good, The Bad, And The Scalia: Koontz Oral Argument Round-Up

Okay, all you “relevant parcel” mavens, here’s another decision for you (once again involving land in Florida, although, unlike the other case which came out of the Florida court of appeals, this one is out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) .

These decisions provide a measure of sanity to the issue of how much of the property owned by the plaintiff is included when determining whether value has been wiped out under Lucas, or the extent of the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant under Penn Central. These tests require an analysis of the impact of the regulatory action on the “parcel as a whole,” and since Penn Central first made the inquiry relevant, the courts an litigants have been trying to figure out the “denominator” — is it everything the plaintiff owns? Everything nearby? Everything it once owned? The discrete…

Continue Reading Federal Circuit: Denial Of Permit To Fill Wetlands Might Be A Taking

pbeard

When you are a property owner making a takings argument and Justice Scalia gives you a hard time at oral argument, you would be safe in thinking that you’ve got an uphill battle.

That was the situation today during the oral argument (transcript here) in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), the case in which the Court is considering whether the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards of Nollan and Dolan are applicable only to exactions for land, or whether they are generally-applicable tests for all exactions.

Justice Scalia, author of the Nollan opinion, did not seem all that concerned with the second Question Presented (whether only exactions of real property are subject to Nollan/Dolan), but more on whether a takings claim can be based on an excessive exaction attached to a permit when the property…

Continue Reading SCOTUS Arguments In Monetary Exactions Case: (Sliced) Bread And Circuses

For those of us who were far, far away, and thus not able to be in D.C. for today’s oral arguments in person, here is the transcript in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012).

Here’s the first recap of the arguments, from Greenwire‘s Lawrence Hurley, “Supreme court: Justices weigh Fla. property rights dispute.”

More, after a chance to digest the transcript.

Transcript of oral arguments, Koontz v. St John’s River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (Jan. 15, 2013) 


Continue Reading SCOTUS Transcript In Koontz

PICT0408

With the oral arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012) at last here, we thought we’d go back and revisit our write-up of our visit to the Dolan site, complete with photos: Regulatory Takings Pilgrimage Part II.

Koontz, as you know, is about whether the Nollan nexus test, and Dolan‘s requirement of “rough proportionality” apply only to land exactions, or is a generally-applicable test for all exactions.

Continue Reading Exactions Flashback – Our Visit To The Dolan Site

Here‘s the Legal Information Institute’s preview of tomorrow’s U.S. Supreme Court arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012). That’s the case in which the Court will be addressing whether the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards of Nollan and Dolan are applicable only to exactions for land, or whether they are generally-applicable tests for all exactions.

Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the property owner/petitioner. The property owner’s brief on the merits is available here. The other amicus briefs supporting the property owner are available here, here, and here. The Water Management District’s merits brief is posted here. The amicus briefs suporting the Water District are posted here. The property owner’s reply brief is here.

The LII’s preview has a good “he said she said”…

Continue Reading LII Preview: Koontz “has the potential to drastically modify takings jurisprudence with regard to exactions”

When we first read the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Muscarello v. Winnebago County Bd., No. 11-2332 (7th Cir. Dec. 7, 2012), a case involving takings, due process, and other* challenges to a county zoning ordinance making it easier to build a wind farm, our first thought was “that case sounds familiar.”

It was. In this case, the same court ruled pretty much the same way, in a case about wind farms, against what appears to be the same plaintiff.

The recent opinion was covered in detail in Dean Patty Salkin’s Law of the Land blog here, so we won’t repeat it.

————————

*the opinion referred to the suit as “a blunderbuss of federal and state claims” 

Muscarello v. Winnebago County Bd., No. 11-2332 (7th Cir. Dec. 7, 2012) 


Continue Reading 7th Cir: If At First You Don’t Succeed…

Here’s a follow-up to our recent post about the U. Hawaii Law Review article authored by lawprof David Callies which summarizes the land use and property decisions of the Hawaii Supreme Court during the tenure of now-retired Chief Justice Ronald Moon. You know, the article setting out the stunning success rates of certain parties in the court, which chides the Justices for their often-lengthy opinions, and labels the Moon Court’s record on property rights “appalling.” Download the article here.

Today’s Honolulu Star-Advertiser has a follow-up interview with Professor Callies, most of which is behind a paywall. But if you don’t have an e-subscription (a real deal for those with mainland zip codes, by the way), here are the choice parts:

  • “Callies says he isn’t against planning in general, but thinks there must be legitimate police powers involved for the right of development to be abrogated.”
  • “QUESTION: A recent

…
Continue Reading More From U.H. Lawprof On 1993-2010 HAWSCT’s “Appalling” Record On Property Rights

Here’s the petitioners’ merits brief in Horne v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 12-122 (cert. granted. Nov. 20, 2012).

That’s the case in which the Court is reviewing Horne v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, 673 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2011), in which the Ninth Circuit concluded a takings claim raised as a defense by raisin farmers who qualified as “raisin handlers” under federal regulations and thus were required to “reserve” (donate) 47% of their crop to the government, was not ripe because the farmers could seek just compensation in a Tucker Act claim in the Court of Federal Claims. For the 2003 and 2004 crop years, the USDA government brought an enforcement action against the farmers, seeking to recover the monetary value of raisins they did not turn over to the government.

The Ninth Circuit dismissed the takings claim for lack of jurisdiction, effectively telling the…

Continue Reading Can A Property Owner Raise A Takings Defense? – Petitioners’ Brief In California Raisin Case