Inverse condemnation

Subscribe to Inverse condemnation via RSS

Header image LUI 2019

Come join us at the 33rd Annual Land Use Institute, in Baltimore, Maryland, April 11-12, 2019.

As the brochure notes:

This Annual Land Use Institute program is designed for attorneys, professional planners, and government officials involved in land use planning, zoning, permitting, property development, conservation and environmental protection, and related litigation. It not only addresses and analyzes the state-of-the-art efforts by government to manage land use and development, but also presents the key issues faced by property owners and developers in obtaining necessary governmental approvals. In addition, the entire approach of the program is to provide practice pointers that give immediate “take home value” by focusing on topics relevant to the average practice of the attendee.

The keynote will be delivered by Dennis Archer, former mayor of Detroit (and former Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, and former President of the ABA), speaking about “Detroit’s New GM Plant from…

Continue Reading 33rd Annual Land Use Institute: Baltimore April 11-12, 2019

6a00d83451707369e201bb08b7aef7970d-800wi

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following that has resulted in what we’re counting as no less that three lawsuits in state court (all removed to federal court by the State of Hawaii, as far as we are aware), which have gone back-and-forth between the U.S. District Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Hawaii Supreme Court.

The latest is no different, and asks which statute of limitations applies to takings claims: the two-year personal injury statute, or the six-year “catch all.” The answer has not been definitively resolved by Hawaii’s courts, so Ninth Circuit in this order (Mar.7, 2019) booted this dispositive legal issue to the Hawaii Supreme Court by certifying this question: 

What is the applicable statute of limitations for a claim against the State of Hawai‘i alleging an unlawful taking of “[p]rivate property . . . for public use without just compensation,” Haw. Const. art. I…

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Wants To Know The Statute Of Limitations For Takings Claims In Hawaii

The bulk of the Indiana Court of Appeals’ opinion in Grdinich v. Plan Comm’n for the Town of Hebron, No. 18A-PL-1050 (Feb. 28, 2019) is devoted to details of land use law, specifically exhaustion of administrative remedies. If that floats your boat, we’ll let you read it. 

What caught our eye was at the very last part of the opinion (page 16), where the court concluded that the property owner did not adequately plead an inverse condemnation claim, when his complaint alleged “that real estate owned by him is encumbered by a 150-foot underground storm water drainage pipeline that is owned and controlled by Hebron for public use without payment for just compensation.” In other words, an uncompensated physical invasion taking. 

The court held this did not state a claim as a matter of law because the allegedly offending pipeline was already in place at the time the plaintiff purchased…

Continue Reading Indiana App: No Inverse Claim Where Government’s Permanent Physical Invasion Of Property Happened Before Purchase

Thank you to our colleague, economist William Wade, for sending along this piece, reacting to a recent decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

————————

Financial inconsistency bedevils takings decisions

by William W. Wade, Ph.D.

This blog recently reported on a Massachusetts Appellate Court takings case ruling (Smyth v. Conservation Comm’n of Falmouth, No. 17-P-1189 (Feb. 19, 2019)), that reversed a judgment for the plaintiff, in part, based on an erroneous economic impact evaluation under the famous Penn Central test.

Plaintiff inherited a parcel from her parents seemingly purchased in 1975 for $49,000. Plaintiff’s appraiser valued the land parcel at $700,000 with the intended development and $60,000 in its current status as an unbuildable lot. The trial court awarded damages of $640,000.

While other issues were at issue on appeal, the court ruled on the economic impact prong of Penn Central that the diminution in value, $700,000 to $60,000…

Continue Reading Guest Post: Financial Inconsistency Bedevils Takings Decisions

Here’s the motion and proposed amicus brief we filed earlier this week, in a case we’ve been following about natural gas pipelines, eminent domain, and immediate possession.

As we noted here, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently concluded that a private condemnor under the Natural Gas Act could obtain immediate possession of property it is in the process of condemning, even though the NGA does not delegate the quick take power. All three judges concluded that this case is “on all fours” with the Fourth Circuit’s earlier decision in East Tennessee Nat. Gas Co. v. Sage, 361 F.3d 808 (4th Cir. 2004), which held that even though Congress did not delegate the quick take power in the NGA, a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure could achieve the same result, and thus there was…

Continue Reading New Amicus Brief: Private Natural Gas Act Condemnors Can’t Use Rule 65 Injunctions To Short-Circuit The Straight Takings Process

Later today (starting at 1pm ET), our colleague Edward Thomas is chairing an ABA-produced webinar on “Low Income Populations: Underrepresented Socially, Overrepresented as Victims of Natural Disasters: Using the Law to Solve a Serious Problem.”

As in other areas of life, when natural disasters strike, it is often the owners of modest means who are the hardest hit. Floods, wildfires, sea level rise, you name it. And Ed has been there: he’s a former FEMA guy, and currently the President of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Association who understands that property rights have to be respected in these situations. 

Find out more information about the program and register here. Continue Reading Webinar Today – Low Income Populations: Underrepresented Socially, Overrepresented as Victims of Natural Disasters

IMG_20180720_151841

Rather than sum up the issue and the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s** conclusion in Smyth v. Conservation Comm’n of Falmouth, No. 17-P-1189 (Feb. 19, 2019), here’s the first part of the opinion:

GREEN, C.J. A land owner brought this action in the Superior Court, claiming that local land use regulation effected a taking of her property, requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. This appeal presents a question of first impression in Massachusetts: whether the land owner is entitled to have her regulatory taking claim decided by a jury. We conclude that the jury right does not attach to such a claim, and that the judge erred in denying the defendants’ motion to submit only the question of damages to a jury. We further conclude that the evidence presented at the trial did not, as matter…

Continue Reading Mass App: Regulatory Takings Claims Don’t Get A Jury Trial

JD Morris has the story at the San Francisco Chronicle, “California’s strict wildfire liability rule hangs over bankrupt PG&E.”

The story is about inverse condemnation of course, and how California law applies that doctrine in cases involving what look like natural disasters, most notably the state’s recent experiences with major wildfires.

We provided comments on whether an insurance fund might make some sense (because isn’t the mail goal of inverse liability to spread the economic burden of public benefits?). And the story also picks up on the recent 2-1 Ninth Circuit decision on how inverse claims which have not been reduced to judgment get treated in bankruptcy: 

The wildfire fund alternative Paulo identified could be evaluated by a new committee focused on wildfires and utilities that was authorized by Dodd’s bill, SB901. Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed his three members to the committee just last…

Continue Reading SF Chronicle: “California’s strict wildfire liability rule hangs over bankrupt PG&E”

In the usual circumstance, we wouldn’t be terribly interested in an unpublished — and therefore not precedental — opinion. But the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in Kerns v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, No. 18-3636 (Feb. 4, 2019) caught our attention because it involves “forced pooling,” which this site describes this way:

At its most basic, pooling is the joining together or combination of small tracts or portions of tracts to create sufficient acreage to receive a drilling permit under applicable state spacing rules and regulations, and for the purpose of sharing the production from the pooled unit among the pooled interest owners.

Often, pooling is done voluntarily. That is, interest owners agree to the benefits of the combined acreage. Most oil and gas leases contain provisions allowing the lessee to pool the acreage covered by the lease; sometimes this right is virtually unlimited.

At times, however, there are unleased…

Continue Reading 6th Cir (unpub): “Forced Pooling” – Requiring Holdouts To Participate In Fracking – Isn’t A Taking

A short update from the west coast: the California Supreme Court late last week denied discretionary review in the case in which a California utility was arguing that it cannot be liable under that state’s version of inverse condemnation because the utility, unlike a governmental entity, cannot automatically spread the cost of any judgment to all members of its constituency.

We posted the utility’s petition here (“Electric Company: We Can’t Be Liable For Inverse Condemnation For Cal Wildfires Unless We Can ‘Unilaterally Recoup Costs From The Benefited Public Through Taxation Or Rate Increases‘”).

There are other cases raising the same issue coming up the pipeline, so stay tuned for more. Continue Reading Cal Supreme Court Denies Review Of Wildfire Inverse Petition