Inverse condemnation

Subscribe to Inverse condemnation via RSS

16CA1198-PD

Under Colorado law, a property owner has an inverse condemnation claim when “a governmental or public entity with the power of eminent domain takes action that ‘substantially depriv[es] the property owner of the use and enjoyment of the property, but the [entity] has not formally brought condemnation proceedings.'” Kobobel v. Colo. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 249 P.3d 1127, 1133 (Colo. 2011).

In Sos v. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, No. 16CA1198 (Nov. 16, 2017), the Colorado Court of Appeals concluded the RFTA possesses the power of eminent domain (and thus could be liable for inverse condemnation), and, more interestingly, that the RFTA relying on Mr. Sos’s property for lateral support for RFTA’s retaining wall was a “damaging.” 

Sos has a tire business, and there is a dirt embankment on the portion of his lot adjacent to RFTA’s property, where Sos stored tires and stuff. RFTA built a new bus station…

Continue Reading Colorado App Clarifies State Constitution’s “Damaging” Clause: Forcing A Neighbor To Provide Lateral Support Is Compensable

Here’s the cert petition in a case we’ve been following from the Third Circuit, Knick v. Township of Scott. 

Read more about the case’s background here. The short story is that the court concluded the Township’s ordinance which requires owners of all cemeteries, public or private, to maintain them was “constitutionally suspect,” but also held that the owner had not ripened it under Williamson County.

What’s the big deal, you ask? Well, the problem is that apparently many landowners don’t know they own a cemetery. So the ordinance allows the Township’s code inspectors to enter “any property” to inspect and see if it is in compliance with the ordinance. When zoning inspectors came round and told Ms. Knick to clean up her cemetery, her response was “what cemetery? She sued, claiming among other things a facial takings claim. She did not file a state court inverse condemnation case for…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Reconsider Williamson County’s “State Remedies” Prong, Or Just Overrule It

You should be following along with Clint Schumacher’s Eminent Domain Podcast on your own, but in case you missed this one in your feed, be sure to check out the latest episode, which features U. Virginia Law School prof Molly Brady talking about “damage clauses” in state constitutions.

The podcast and links to the materials and cases discussed are posted here. 

There’s also a short segment on Brott v. United States, currently at the cert stage in SCOTUS. That’s the one about Article III judges, and juries in inverse cases against the federal government (which under the Tucker Act, you don’t get in the Article I Court of Federal Claims). This case presents the issue we’ve focused on for a while: whether the self-executing nature of the just compensation requirement is subject to the power of Congress, and needs a waiver of sovereign immunity in order…

Continue Reading Eminent Domain Podcast, Episode XI – State Damaging Clauses, Jury Trials In Federal Inverse Cases?

The title of West Virginia Lottery v. A-1 Amusement, Inc., No. 16-1047 (Nov. 13, 2017) alone may not give you an indication that this is a takings case, but yes, it’s a takings case. 

As the title might indicate, it’s a case involving the state-run lottery and video lottery machines. If we’re reading the details right, the lottery issued permits to the plaintiffs, after which they were instructed to use a different software program, and informed that using any other software would render their machines illegal. The amusement companies were not prepared to retool (they’d have to buy new machines, they alleged), and brought regulatory takings, due process, and civil conspiracy claims. 

The trial court refused to dismiss the complaint, concluding that damages for the takings and due process claims could not be limited to the lottery’s insurance policy limits, and that the lottery had waived its sovereign…

Continue Reading West Virginia: Takings Clause Protects More Than Just Land – Owners Of Personal Property Can Bring Inverse Condemnation Claims

The Georgia Supreme Court’s analysis in Diversified Holdings, LLP v. City of Suwanee, No. S17A1140 (Nov. 2, 2017) reminded us of that old trope from logic, “no true Scotsman.” 

According to a completely reliable source (Wikipedia):

No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule (“no true Scotsman would do such a thing”; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).

(And, in case you were wondering, “For the practice of…

Continue Reading Georgia: No True Taking – Challenge To City’s Refusal To Rezone Isn’t Really Inverse Condemnation

We all know that if you are challenging a federal government action as either beyond the agency’s authority (or is unconstitutional), and as a taking, you’ve got to split your claim between a U.S. district court, and the Court of Federal Claims. The district court considers challenges to the validity of the government action, while the CFC hears claims that a valid government act has taken property and thus compensation is owed. 

But what about when you are challenging state actors in state court? The Connecticut Supreme Court’s opinion in Wellswood Columbia, LLC v. Town of Hebron, No. SC 19693 (Nov. 7, 2017) is an example of the dangers of not bringing your compensation and damage claims together with your challenge to the government act when you are in non-federal forums. 

The facts of the case are pretty straightforward: the plaintiff was considering purchasing land on which it wanted…

Continue Reading Connecticut Creates Lower Court Split? Split Your Takings Claim At Your Own Res Judicata Risk

We’re looking forward to a good crowd at the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, when we shall converge on Charleston, SC, January 25-27, 2018. We’ve received word that our main conference hotel, the Francis Marion, has sold out.

But if you haven’t reserved your space yet, don’t despair. The conference organizers have made arrangements at a hotel that is very nearby, the Marriott Courtyard, for a special conference rate. That hotel is just across the park from the Francis Marion. ALI is also making arrangements for conference room blocks in two other nearby hotels. Details on all of these alternatives are posted here.  

One more thing that we didn’t mention in our preview: there will also be a special sneak preview of the movie about Kelo v. City of New London, Little Pink House. If you joined us in Austin in…

Continue Reading ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference Hotel Block Selling Out – Overflow Available

Here’s the cert petition which has just been filed in a case we’ve been following since it was instituted in the District Court, Brott v. United States.

The case presents the deceptively simple question of whether property owners who sue the federal government for a taking are entitled to both an Article III forum, and to have the issues determined by a jury.

This is a rails-to-trails case, and as followers of this blog know, these claims, when they exceed $10,000, must be raised in the Article I Court of Federal Claims, where you get the case tried by a judge, and not a jury. The jurisdiction of the CFC was conferred by Congress in the Tucker Act.

Brott is challenging that scheme (complaint here), arguing that the self-executing nature of the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause requires both an Article III court, and a jury. …

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Property Owners Entitled To Jury & Article III Judge In Federal Inverse Cases

Check this out: according to this article (“This SC man won a Supreme Court case. He wants to know why he can’t talk about it“), David Lucas, the lawyer-property owner behind the big reg takings case Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1993), was apparently not invited to speak at the (ongoing) event at the University of South Carolina law school marking the 25th anniversary of the decision. The local paper reports:

The University of South Carolina law school is holding a three-day event to mark the 25th anniversary of a S.C. man’s legal victory in the U.S. Supreme Court. But the victor in that case, Davis Lucas, isn’t invited, and he’s upset.

. . . .

Lucas, who sued for the right to build on two lots on the Isle of Palms, is upset neither he nor his attorneys were invited…

Continue Reading Lucas Not Invited To Lucas Conference

20170918_190120
No soup for you!

Update: our colleague Bryan Wenter has his take on one of the cases denied review here (“U.S. Supreme Court Again Declines to Consider Important Property Rights Issue Regarding the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine“) (“Because the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court leans ideologically conservative by any traditional measure and it takes only four of nine Justices to grant certiorari, on the surface it is surprising that the Court has yet to take up a case, such as CBIA or 616 Croft Ave., that would finally resolve this distinction between sweeping legislative takings and particularized administrative takings. The surprise is enhanced to a degree by the fact that the Court considered both cases in conference four times, which suggests a serious interest in the issue.”).

* * * *

To bring you up to speed on cases of interest in the Supreme Court’s cert pipeline…

Continue Reading Cert Denied, Denied, Denied, Denied In Property Cases (But Don’t Give Up The Ship Just Yet)