Inverse condemnation

Subscribe to Inverse condemnation via RSS

From today’s Bloomberg, a report about the two recently-filed lawsuits alleging the federal government’s takeover of AIG in 2008 was unconstitutional. One suit was filed in federal court in New York against the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the other, seeking $25 billion in just compensation, was filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the government itself. 

Both complaints were filed by attorney David Boies, who represented the U.S. in its Microsoft Inc. 1999 antitrust trial and Al Gore in the Florida presidential recount litigation in 2000.

“Any time David Boies is asking for $25 billion, I would say this is not a normal case,” said Robert H. Thomas of the Honolulu firm Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hasters.

“He takes cutting edge cases in unexplored areas of law,” said Thomas, who specializes in land-use and eminent domain. “It’s audacious. As someone who represents plaintiffs in…

Continue Reading Bloomberg Reports On Greenberg’s “Audacious” Takings Lawsuit

As reported yesterday by the NY Times :

Maurice R. Greenberg, the former chief executive of the American International Group, sued the United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on Monday, contending that their takeover of the insurer in the fall of 2008 was improper and that the Fed breached its duty to A.I.G. shareholders when it unwound the company’s disastrous bets on mortgage securities.

. . . .

“What these lawsuits say is that in our country, not even the government is above the law,” said David Boies, the lawyer at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, who represents Mr. Greenberg and Starr. “When the government takes action, although it has enormous power, there are legal limits to what they can do. One of those limits is that they cannot take private property even for a good purpose if they do it in violation of…

Continue Reading Legal Superstar Files New CFC Just Compensation Complaint For Federal Taking Of AIG

Here’s the latest from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the court that hears appeals in most regulatory takings claims against the federal government), CCA Associaties v. United States, No. 2010-5100 -5101 (Nov. 21, 2011).

This is an appeal of a Court of Federal Claims decision holding that two federal statutes worked a taking under the three-part Penn Central test because they abrogated the rights of the owner of a Louisiana apartment building to prepay its way out of providing low income housing. The CFC held that the programs set up under the statutes in effect forced CCA to continue to provide low income housing — a public good — and that it was a taking.

The Federal Circuit reversed:

The United States appeals from the decision of the Court of Federal Claims that the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act, Pub. L. No. 100-242, §…

Continue Reading Federal Circuit: No Regulatory Taking Under Penn Central Test

West Linn Corporate Park LLC v City of West Linn, No. 11-299 (petition for cert. filed Sep. 6, 2011), a petition we’ve been following that asked whether the nexus and “rough proportionality” tests for a regulatory taking in Nollan and Dolan are limited to government demands for land, has been denied.

California and Texas say the nexus and rough proportionality standards apply to all exactions (we don’t want the government blackmailing permit applicants, regardless of the tribute that is demanded), while Florida says they don’t. Other courts have also weighed in on one side or the other, and lacking guidance from the Supreme Court, will continue to flounder about on this issue.

We suspect the Court’s reluctance to address the confusion has less to do with the issue at hand (must all exactions be related and proportional to the predicted impact of the development) and more to do…

Continue Reading Lower Court Split On Applicablity Of Nollan/Dolan To Exactions Other Than Land Continues: West Linn Petition Denied

SCOTUSblog has designated West Linn Corporate Park LLC v City of West Linn, No. 11-299 (petition for cert. filed Sep. 6, 2011), as a petition to watch for today’s conference.

That’s the case which asks whether the nexus and “rough proportionality” tests for a regulatory taking in Nollan and Dolan are limited to government demands for land.

“Petitions to watch” are those petitions which SCOTUSblog predicts have a reasonable chance of a grant (besides their own, of course). Continue Reading West Linn Case A “Petition To Watch” – Are Nollan And Dolan Limited To Exactions Of Land?

palazzolo

From The Day comes the sad news that Anthony Palazzolo, the namesake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), has died.

Anthony Palazzolo, whose fight to develop his property in Misquamicut made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, died Nov. 3 at the age of 91.

Palazzolo, a former auto wrecker and lifelong resident of Westerly, sued the state of Rhode Island for 17 years before ending his fight in 2005.

The case pitted environmentalists and property-rights activists from across the country. Environmental officials said Palazzolo’s plan to fill and develop his wetlands would “strangle” Winnapaug Pond, since the marsh is a habitat for fish and shellfish, and filters and cleanses waters that end up in the pond.

Read the entire story here.

My PLF colleague Jim Burling argued the case on behalf of Mr. Palazzolo. Continue Reading Anthony Palazzolo (1918-2011)

Hold the presses! In an unusual move spurred by a recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court, the petitioner has filed a supplemental brief in West Linn Corporate Park LLC v City of West Linn, No. 11-299 (petition for cert. filed Sep. 6, 2011), the case which asks whether the nexus and “rough proportionality” tests for a regulatory taking in Nollan and Dolan are limited to government demands for land.

Earlier this week, we thought we had seen the final briefs in the case, but alas no. The petitioner’s supplemental brief discusses the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in St. Johns River Water Management Dist v. Koontz, No. SC09-713 (Nov. 3, 2011), which held that Nollan and Dolan analysis is limited to real estate exactions, and do not apply to demands for offsite mitigation. The brief argues:

The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Koontz underscores the importance…

Continue Reading Late-Breaking: Supplemental Brief In West Linn Case: Are Nollan And Dolan Limited To Exactions Of Land?

We’ve been thinking a lot about exactions lately.

First, it was the petition for certiorari in West Linn Corporate Park LLC v City of West Linn, No. 11-299 (petition for cert. filed Sep. 6, 2011), which asks whether the nexus and “rough proportionality” tests for a regulatory taking in Nollan and Dolan are limited to government demands for land. Then, late last week the Florida Supreme Court disagreed with the California and Texas Supreme Courts, and held in St. Johns River Water Management Dist v. Koontz, No. SC09-713 (Nov. 3, 2011) that Nollan and Dolan analysis is limited to real estate exactions, and do not apply to demands for offsite mitigation.

Now we’re back to the West Linn case, since the parties have filed their final briefs, and the Court is scheduled to decide whether to take the case at its upcoming November 10, 2011 conference. So…

Continue Reading Final Cert Briefs In West Linn Case: Are Nollan And Dolan Limited To Exactions Of Land?

This just in: on November 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether it has found the vehicle to resolve an issue the lower courts have vehemently disagreed upon, whether the Nollan/Dolan nexus/rough proportionality analysis is limited to exactions of real property. See West Linn Corporate Park, LLC v. City of West Linn, No. 11-299.

The Ninth Circuit concluded it does not, disagreeing with the California and Texas Supreme Courts, which have held that Nollan/Dolan is applicable to all exactions, not just demands for land. Yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court weighed in, holding in St. Johns River Water Management Dist v. Koontz, No. SC09-713 (Nov. 3, 2011):

Accordingly, we hold that under the takings clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions, the Nollan/Dolan rule with regard to “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” is applicable only where the condition/exaction sought by…

Continue Reading Fla S Ct: Nollan/Dolan Applies Only To Exactions Of Land

ZPLR_11_2011Here’s an article I recently published in the Zoning and Planning Law Report, Recent Developments in Regulatory Takings Law: What Counts as “Property?”, 34 Zoning & Planning Law Report (Thomson | West 2011).

If you subscribe to ZPLR, look for it in the mail (and if you don’t, you should).

If you are not a subscriber (and again, you really should subscribe, ZPLR is one of the better ways, along with Gideon Kanner’s Just Compensation, to keep up with the latest goings-on), the good people at West provide this freebie, as authors are allowed to post their own articles on their web site. So here you go.

Thomas, Recent Developments in Regulatory Takings Law: What Counts as “Property?” 34 Zoning & Planning Law ……

Continue Reading New Article: What Counts As “Property” In Regulatory Takings Law?