Inverse condemnation

Subscribe to Inverse condemnation via RSS

If you understand that headline, congratulations: you are officially a takings geek.

Here’s another piece worth reading, to prepare yourself for next week’s oral arguments in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012): Is the federal government shifting the focus in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission? by my PLF colleague Brian T. Hodges.

Somewhat surprisingly, the central question in this case—whether a physical invasion of private property must continue permanently to take property within the meaning of the Takings Clause—seems to be the least controversial of the questions posed by the parties’ merits briefs.  The question that is drawing the most attention is whether a temporary flood invasion should be treated like all other temporary physical takings (for which the Court has already established a test as set out in the PLF/Cato Institute/ALF amicus brief), or whether the Court should…

Continue Reading Shifting Gears In SCOTUS Takings Case: Are Floods Treated As Physical Invasions, Or Analyzed Under Penn Central?

Greenwire’s Lawrence Hurley has posted his preview of next week’s Supreme Court arguments in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012).

In Ark. girds for showdown with Army Corps over forest flooding, Hurley writes:

The Supreme Court’s job is to decide whether temporary flooding of the type that occurred at the Black River site can constitute a “taking,” which is generally viewed as a permanent loss of property.

Or as Ilya Shapiro, a legal scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, rephrased the question: “When a tree falls in a forest due to temporary flooding, does it make a sound for which you can recover under the takings clause?”

The story details some of the personalities on the property owner side, and is worth reading. Continue Reading Greenwire Previews SCOTUS Takings Case

Here’s the property owner/petitioner’s Reply Brief in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the Supreme Court takings case scheduled to be argued on October 3, 2012.

The Federal Circuit held that flooding caused by the Corps was only temporary that destroyed G&F’s trees did not result in a compensable taking merely because the flooding it eventually stopped, and “at most created tort liablity.” The dissenting judge concluded that temporary flooding was no different in kind than more permanent flooding that occurs in other inverse condemnation cases and regularly results in awards of compensation. The Federal Circuit’s opinion is here.

The Reply Brief responds to the federal government’s brief, and argues: 

The Commission seeks to apply the physical takings analysis, not a regulatory analysis like the Penn Central framework, that this Court established in flooding decisions like Pumpelly and…

Continue Reading Property Owner’s Reply Brief In Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n: Flooding Causing Destruction Is Physical, Not Regulatory Taking

The Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School has published its preview of Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the takings case set to be argued on October 3, 2012.

Petitioner, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (the “Commission”) sued Respondent, the United States, for a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which compels the government to compensate parties when the government physically seizes property. Specifically, the Commission argues that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) permanently destroyed trees in a bottomland hardwood forest in Arkansas by intermittently flooding the forest for six years. The United States asserts that the actions of the Corps did not constitute a taking because the Corps did not oust the Commission of possession of the forest, and only a continuous invasion qualifies as a physical taking. The Supreme…

Continue Reading A Concise Preview Of The Arguments In Arkansas Game: Flooding & Takings

Check out Evans v. United States, No. 2010-1303 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 17, 2012), a rails-to-trails case in which the Federal Circuit “confess[ed] to some puzzlement over exactly what all this sturm und drang is about.” Slip op. at 9 (footnote omitted). The court resolved a procedural issue in favor of property owners (represented by our colleague Thor Hearne, who is a frequent guest poster on rails-to-trails takings issues, most recently here).

It’s a short opinion so we won’t go into it in detail, but the case details the procedural hurdles that property owners often must go though and the jurisdictional maze they must navigate to get their takings claims against the federal government resolved. Takings lawyers who practice in the Court of Federal Claims refer to the constant jumping back and forth between the District Courts and the CFC as the “Tucker Act Shuffle,” and…

Continue Reading Federal Circuit: What’s All The “Sturm Und Drang” About?

In Moore v. City of Middletown, No 2012-1363 (Aug. 30, 2012), the Ohio Supreme Court held that a property owner did not have standing to bring a regulatory takings claim when a “foreign municipality” (the neighboring city) rezoned an adjacent parcel, because the municipality did not have jurisdiction to exercise eminent domain over his property. However, the court held the property owner could seek a declaratory judgment “to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinances.”

Under Ohio law, a “regulatory takings” action gives the plaintiff a right to bring a mandamus action to compel a municipality to institute condemnation proceedings, and the court held that since Middletown could not have exercised eminent domain authority outside of its jurisdiction, it could not be compelled to do so by the property owner. Our Ohio colleague Matt Fellerhoff discussed this aspect of Ohio law in his analysis of Clifton v. Blanchester, 964…

Continue Reading Ohio: No Such Thing As Extraterritorial Inverse Condemnation

The speed of the internet: we were preparing a post on Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., No. B-230470 (Aug. 30, 2012), when the good folks over at Murphy & Evertz beat us to it. In a post entitled Pacific Bell Telephone Company v. Southern California Edison: Spiderman And Inverse Condemnation, they write:

Pacific Bell held that a privately owned public utility may be strictly liable in an inverse condemnation action for damage to private property. Why? Because privately owned public utilities and publicly owned public utilities both provide a vital governmental service: providing power to the people. And with that power comes great responsibility.

We recommend you read their entire analysis.

Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. S. California Edison Co., No. B-230470 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2012)Continue Reading Cal App: Private Utility May Be Liable For Inverse Condemnation

Those of you who attended the recent CLE session at the ABA Annual Meeting about Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012) may recall that Professor John Echeverria, the well-known environmental lawprof, said he was writing a brief in the case supporting the government’s arguments, but was looking for a “client.” Well, it looks like he found one: today, the International Municipal Lawyers Association filed this amicus brief in support of the respondent.

In Arkansas Game, the Federal Circuit held that flooding caused by the Corps of Engineers was only temporary, and did not result in a compensable taking merely because it eventually stopped, and “at most created tort liablity.” The dissenting judge concluded that temporary flooding was no different in kind than more permanent flooding that occurs in other inverse condemnation cases, and regularly results in awards of …

Continue Reading IMLA Amicus Brief In SCOTUS Flood Takings Case: This Is Not An “Environmental” Case

August 31, 2012 was a big day in the Texas Supreme Court for takings and condemnation lawyers. The court issued three major opinions in our favorite area of law. The first involves a question of public use, the second inverse condemnation, and the third valuation. Trifecta.

Instead of putting our gloss on the opinions, we’ll just post them and excerpts of the summaries from the Supreme Court of Texas Blog.

  • City of Austin v. Whittingthon, No. 10-0316 – From the Supreme Court of Texas Blog: “This is a potentially major takings case about when government can take property for private (rather than public) benefit. The City of Austin took a parcel of land in downtown that was, in short order, folded into a private development. A jury concluded that this taking was made in bad faith, and the court of appeals agreed. Divided 7-2, the Texas Supreme

…
Continue Reading Big Takings Day In The Texas Supreme Court

Here’s the latest inverse condemnation opinion from the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a case involving overflights from an adjacent airport. The case arose when property owners asserted that an extension of the runway by 1500 feet was a taking. The trial court dismissed the property owners’ inverse condemnation claims, but the court of appeal reversed and revived their claims.The airport authority sought review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which affirmed.

The decision was summarized by the Schober & Mitchell blog:

The Court took into consideration the fact that Wisconsin Statutes Section 114.03 and 114.04 gave property owners certain rights with respect to airspace over their properties. It determined referring to federal case law that the proper standard to be applied in determining whether a taking occurs in airplane overflight cases is whether the government action results in aircraft flying low enough and with such frequency as to have a…

Continue Reading Airspace In Wisconsin Is Property – Overflights May Be A Taking