Inverse condemnation

Subscribe to Inverse condemnation via RSS

We won’t go into the details of the Court of Federal Claims’ opinion and order in In re Upstream Addicks and Barker (Texas) Flood Control Reservoirs, No. 17-9001L (Dec. 17, 2019), since it is 46 single-spaced pages long. You can (and should) read the entire thing. But we shall highlight of a few of the highlights, since this is definitely a case to watch, especially as it progresses to the (inevitable) appeal to the Federal Circuit. 

This is the case in which Texas owners whose property upstream of two government created and maintained dams was intentionally flooded by the Corps of Engineers after Hurricane Harvey sued the feds for just compensation for a taking. The government sought dismissal, but after a 10-day trial, the CFC held the government is “liable for a taking on a flowage easement on the [thirteen test] properties.” Slip op. at 3. 

The court summarized …

Continue Reading CFC: “Calculated” Hurricane Harvey Flooding Is A Taking – But Will Decision Survive Federal Circuit Review?

Check out Marianist Province of the United States v. City of Kirkwood, No. 18-3076 (Dec. 13, 2019), for the U.S. Court of Appeals’ handling of RLUIPA and (state law) takings claims stemming from the city not allowing a religious school to light up its baseball field. 

Today’s a busy day, so we won’t delve in detail into the opinion. But nicely, the Eighth Circuit’s website has a summary:

In school’s challenge to city’s zoning regulations in connection with the school’s lighting of its outdoor baseball diamond, the district court did not err in determining that the regulations concerning lighting and sound systems did not substantially burden the school’s religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA; the school’s inability to use its baseball field at night is a mere inconvenience and not a substantial burden because there are alternative times and locations available to it; school’s “as-applied” claim that the school…

Continue Reading If You Build It, It Might Be A Zoning Violation: No Taking, No RLUIPA Violation When Zoning Limited Lights On Religious School’s Baseball Field

Here’s decision we’ve been anticipating in a case and issue we’ve been following for a while, the question of whether private utilities can be held liable under an inverse condemnation theory for much of the damages caused by the recent California wildfires. 

Short story from the Northern District of California Bankruptcy Court: yes, private utilities can be liable in inverse condemnation:

What Debtors advocate here is to set aside a well-seasoned principle of strict liability. Failing that, they are seeking a solution, fire cost reimbursement, in search of a problem, CPUC’s refusal or unwillingness to allow recovery by a blameless (prudent) investor-owned utility. As noted, they cite no instance when the CPUC denied inverse condemnation cost reimbursement to a prudent operator. And it is the role of the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, to fix problems in advance. As recently as this past July, the California legislature refused…

Continue Reading California’s “Well-Seasoned” Inverse Condemnation Strict Liability Principle Not Set Aside By PG&E’s Bankruptcy Court

Following up on the petition, filed last Friday, asking the Virginia Supreme Court to review a trial court’s demurrer which failed to recognize that the owners of a state lease to harvest oysters in the Nansemond River have a property interest . The court concluded that the city and santitation district possess a superior right to pollute the river with sewage.

The case arose when the city and sanitation district declared the oysterbeds “condemned” during certain times of the year because they put sewage into the river. They denied compensation, and the trial court held that Darling v. City of Newport News, 249 U.S. 540 (1919) subjected the lease owners to the city’s superior right to pollute.

We paid a visit to the site a couple of weeks ago to see the pollution source, and how the oysters are harvested in the river. The above video is from that…

Continue Reading Videos: Oyster Takings On The Nansemond River

We were not as creative as our colleague Paul Henry (see below), but our Planning Co-Chair Joe Waldo and I wanted to personally invite you to join the “big guns” in our area of law at the 37th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, January 23-25, 2020, in Nashville, Tennessee.

We’ve assembled an excellent faculty, and an agenda that covers the hot topics of the day. Go here to view the complete faculty list and agenda. Water rights, Knick, appraisal, ethics, civil rights, and a whole lot more in three days of the longest (and we think best) conference in our area of law. Also, for those new to the field, Andy Brigham and Jack Sperber are again leading their “Eminent Domain 101” program. A great way to learn the topic, or for experienced lawyers to get a quick refresher on the basics. Your registration…

Continue Reading Don’t Miss Out: Join The “Big Guns” And Secure Your Space At ALI-CLE’s Upcoming Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Jan 23-25, 2020, Nashville)

We contributed to Marketplace‘s Morning Report (stream above, or visit this link), and its brief discussion of the California wildfire and inverse condemnation situation, “PG&E tries to get out of its financial responsibility to those affected by west coast fires.” That portion of the broadcast begins at the 1:57 mark. 

Today’s the day that a U.S. Bankruptcy judge will hear arguments about whether holding PG&E and other private utilities which possess the power of eminent domain potentially liable under California’s version of inverse condemnation, itself is a taking under the Fifth Amendment because the utilities do not have the ability to spread the costs of any such judgments to their ratepayers automatically. More on the argument (including the brief) here. The claim is made that the purpose of condemnation is to make sure that the costs of public projects are not borne by individual property (correct…

Continue Reading Marketplace Morning Report On Today’s Bankruptcy Court Arguments: Is California’s Inverse Condemnation Rule Itself An Inverse Condemnation Of PG&E’s Property?

We’re not quite sure what to make of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division’s short opinion in 82 Willis, LLC v. City of New York, No. 10303 (Nov. 12, 2019).

There, the court held that flooding on an adjacent vacant lot alleged to have been caused by the city’s project to redo the Willis Avenue Bridge (between Manhattan and The Bronx) was “not sufficiently permanent” to support a claim for inverse condemnation. The city condemned easements on an adjacent lot, but did not exercise eminent domain to take any part of the plaintiff’s property.  Although the plaintiff asserted a claim for compensation shortly after the neighboring lot was condemned (2008), it did not assert any claim for flooding until seven years later (2015), when it asserted that a year earlier (2014) its lot was flooded after a rainfall due to a drainage pipe that became blocked by cement. …

Continue Reading New York Appellate Division: Flooding Was “Not Sufficiently Permanent,” So No Inverse Condemnation

20170918_185734_Richtone(HDR)

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following for a while, Smyth v. Conservation Comm’n of Falmouth, No. 19-223 (cert. petition filed Aug. 16, 2019). 

The petition seeks review of a Massachusetts decision which held that a judge, not a jury, determines Penn Central takings questions, and also that the owner lost anyhow because, you know, Penn Central. The petition asks the Supreme Court to review these Questions Presented:

  1. Whether the loss of all developmental use of property and a 91.5% decline in its value is a sufficient “economic impact” to support a regulatory takings claim under Penn Central.
  2. Whether a person who acquires land in a developed area, prior to regulation, has a legitimate “expectation” of building and, if so, whether that interest can be defeated by a lack of investment in construction?
  3. Whether the Court should excise the “character” factor from Penn Central regulatory

…
Continue Reading Latest In SCOTUS Penn Central Cert Petition

Check this out: the Complaint, filed a couple of days ago in federal court against the State of New York (and others), that alleges the state’s recently-adopted rent control regulations is a taking (among other claims). 

It’s a long complaint so we shall leave it to you to delve into the details yourselves. Most interesting to us is that the complaint’s first named defendant is the State of New York as the State of New York.

What about Eleventh Amendment immunity, you ask? 

Read on. 

Compliant, 74 Pinehurst LLC v. State of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06447 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2019) 

Continue Reading New Federal Court Complaint: State’s Rent Control Is A Taking