Inverse condemnation

Subscribe to Inverse condemnation via RSS

Here’s the respondent’s brief in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012). That’s the case in which the Supreme 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.

The respondent’s brief argues that the Water District did not demand an exaction, but merely “suggested a range of ways [the] applicant may [have] become eligible for a development permit.” Br. at 40. The brief argues that because the District could have denied the permit outright, it was fine for it to “suggest” ways that the property owner could convince it to issue the permit, without needing to show that there was some relationship between the suggested mitigation measures and the justification supporting the denial. Thus this was not merely the…

Continue Reading Brief For The Respondent In Koontz: “Mere Obligation To Spend Money Is Not A Taking”

5330215_big Last year, the American Bar Association published “Eminent Domain – A Handbook of Condemnation Law,” a one-volume deskbook with an overview of condemnation and inverse condemnation law.

I authored two chapters in the book, one on Prelitigation Process, the other on Flooding and Erosion. (My Damon Key colleagues also co-authored the chapter on Damages Resulting from a Taking, so our firm’s fingerprints were all over this book.)

Anyway, as you know, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its decision in in Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (Dec. 4, 2012), in which a unanimous Court held that government-induced flooding could be a taking, even if temporary. The Sandy superstorm also raised some takings by flood issues.

As a consequence, takings liability for inundation damage is on every dirt lawyer’s mind, so the ABA Publications office has posted an excerpt of…

Continue Reading Flood Takings Primer

An opinion worth reading. In Galleon Bay Corp. v. Bd. of County Commissioners, No. 3D11-1296 (Dec. 5, 2012), the Florida District Court of Appeal (Third District), held that the trial court improperly applied the “investment-backed expectations” prong of the Penn Central factors, by not treating the parcels at issue separately from the plaintiff’s other parcel which it had developed “decades earlier.” The appeals court reversed the judgment for the County, and remanded the case, instructing the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the property owner and hold a trial on compensation. It’s a long fact pattern with a relatively short opinion. Check it out.

Pay particular attention to note 9 on page 16, for a flavor of what just might have added to the court of appeals’ determination that the law was on the property owner’s side. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the property…

Continue Reading Fla App Applies Penn Central, Finds A Taking: Investment-Backed Expectations Measured Parcel-by-Parcel, Not Against All Property Owned

That was quick. As we predicted (and urged), the Hawaii Supreme Court today without comment rejected the County of Maui’s application for a writ of certiorari, which asked the court to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals decision in in Leone v. County of Maui, No 29692 (June 22, 2012) (Supreme Court order here).

[Practice sidebar: Hawaii has one intermediate appellate court (so we don’t have lower court “splits,” and under Hawaii appellate procedure, the Supreme Court may “accept” or “reject” an “application” for cert based on whether the ICA “gravely erred.”]

In Leone, the ICA held that property owners alleging a Lucas regulatory taking are not required to seek an amendment to the Community Plan (in Maui County, the CP is like a General Plan in other jurisdictions) in order to ripen their takings claims. A CP amendment is a legislative act, and plaintiffs are…

Continue Reading HAWSCT Rejects County’s Argument That Property Owner Must Change The Law To Ripen Takings Claim

We always like reading amicus briefs filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence because they tend to focus on the history of whatever issue they are addressing, and the brief they (along with the Atlantic Legal Foundation and the Reason Foundation) filed in in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012) fits the bill. Check it out.

This looks like the final amicus brief supporting the property owner/petitioner. Now we wait for the respondent’s brief (and amici). Stay tuned.Continue Reading One More Top Side Amicus Brief In Koontz

Here are some thoughts about yesterday’s opinion in Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (Dec. 4, 2012), in which a unanimous Supreme Court held that government-induced flooding could be a taking, even if temporary. 

Bad Puns and a “Flood” of Litigation

First, the temptation in flooding cases is to make bad puns (the same seems to hold true for beach cases (‘shifting sands,’ for example  … what is it about property cases that especially inspires these bad puns anyway?), and this one is no exception. Justice Ginsburg’s opinion dismissed the trope that holding in favor of the property owner would result in more litigation or a resistance on the part of government to take flood control measures:

The sky did not fall after [United States v.] Causby[, 329 U.S. 256 (1946)], and today’s modest decision augurs no deluge of takings liability.

Slip op.

Continue Reading More Thoughts On Flooding, Takings, And How To Read A Supreme Court Opinion

Here are some initial reports of today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision in Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (Dec. 4, 2012), which held that government induced flooding could be a taking, even if the inundation of the land is temporary. We filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the property owner/petitioner, which argues that as long as the water releases by the Corps “directly and substantially” resulted in damage to petitioner’s property (the G&F Commission is seeking compensation only for the loss of its trees), it’s a taking for which just compensation is required. 

    • Gideon Kanner: “Anyway, the unanimous 8-0 decision of today comes down basically on the side of common sense and holds that the destruction of the state’s timber by the feds’ “temporary”  floodings was

    …
    Continue Reading SCOTUS Flood Takings Case Round-Up

    This just in: the Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion (authored by Justice Ginsburg) in Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (Dec. 4, 2012), holding that government induced flooding is a taking, even if temporary.

    The Court roundly rejected the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that flooding caused by the Corps of Engineers water releases from a dam did not result in a taking because it eventually stopped which “at most created tort liablity.”

    We filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the property owner/petitioner, which argues that as long as the water releases by the Corps “directly and substantially” resulted in damage to petitioner’s property (the G&F Commission is seeking compensation only for the loss of its trees), it’s a taking for which just compensation is required. Our brief pointed out a somewhat obscure case that sets forth this test (National Bd. of …

    Continue Reading Unanimous SCOTUS: Temporary Flooding Could Be A Taking

    Here are two more amicus curiae briefs in n Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012).

    That’s the case asking 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. We filed our amicus brief last week (posted here), and the other amicus briefs in support of the property owner/petitioner are here. 

    …
    Continue Reading More Amicus Briefs In Koontz