Inverse condemnation

Subscribe to Inverse condemnation via RSS

We’ve had bridges on our minds lately. Plus, we’ve been meaning to post the Nebraska Supreme Court’s opinion in Strode v. City of Ashland, No. S-15-956 (Oct. 28, 2016) for a while, and it is coincidentally about a bridge. So the title to this post came to us quickly, and naturally. But writing up the case didn’t.

But while we dawdled, Dean Patty Salkin wrote the case up on her blog, Law of the Land. Which has now saved us the effort of writing the case up in its entirety, and we suggest you start by reading her post for the background and the court’s ruling. 

The case involved two inverse condemnation claims brought by husband and wife property owners, asserting the City’s zoning regulations worked a taking of their land in two ways. They first that the regulations prohibited their use of the land for their…

Continue Reading Nebraska: Inverse Condemnation Claims A Bridge Too Far

We don’t usually post unpublished opinions, but the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Clayland Farm Enterprises, LLC v. Talbot County, No. 15-1755 (Dec. 2, 2016), raised some issues worth your time. 

The property owner brought its claim in Maryland state court claiming, among other things, that the County’s two indefinite moratoria on development and sewer availability — which prohibited owners from seeking or obtaining County subdivision — was a facial taking. The lawsuit asserted “the moratorium is facially unconstitutional,” although it’s not clear from the majority opinion what remedy the complaint sought. 

The County removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motion, because “[i]t is beyond the province and competence of this court to make zoning decisions[.]” 

The Fourth Circuit reversed. “Count I is a facial challenge to the moratoriums and is thus clearly ripe.” Slip op. at 7. Because a…

Continue Reading 4th Circuit (Unpublished): Federal Court Facial Takings Claim Ripe After Removal By Govt To Fed Court

  2-017_MIAMI_LUI header_small

After a short absence and a change of lead sponsor (from ALI-CLE, to the American Bar Association’s Section of State and Local Government Law), the Land Use Institute is back on.

Download the print brochure here, or visit the LUI web site for more. It will be held February 1-2, 2017, in Miami, Florida, at the Brickell City Centre‘s Akerman Conference Center, in conjunction with the ABA’s Midyear Meeting. One of the best aspects of this program is the registration fee, a mere $300, $250 if you are a judge, an academic, young lawyer, or government attorney (perhaps the best deal in CLE). Register on line here. For those who cannot attend in-person, the LUI will be live-streamed. Register here. 

Planning Chairs Frank Schnidman and Dean Patrica Salkin have assembled a very good faculty and program. Topics include: “Nuts and Bolts of Land Use…

Continue Reading Mark Your Calendars: The Land Use Institute Is Returning – February 1-2, 2017, Miami

Here’s the follow up to that cert petition we recently posted. In Romanoff v. United States, 815 F.3d 809 (Fed. Cir. 2016), a rails-to-trails case, the Federal Circuit was confronted with a question about how New York property law treated an easement. In that case, the easement was granted for railroad purposes, and after the railroad stopped using it, the City of New York converted it into a public recreational park, the vaunted “Highline.”

Of course, no one bothered to pay the owner of the reversionary interest just compensation as the Fifth Amendment requires, so it was forced to bring a claim in the Court of Federal Claims to recover compensation. That court, affirmed by the Federal Circuit, concluded that the reversionary owner owned nothing, because the easement its predecessor had granted wasn’t really for railroad purposes, but allowed the grantee to do anything with the…

Continue Reading Amici Brief: On Unsettled Questions Of State Law In Takings Cases, Federal Courts Shouldn’t Guess

C0IlPH7UQAA2JsX

Here’s the final brochure for the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Conference, set for January 26-28, 2017, in San Diego.

Early registration gets you a discount (code CY009MK), as does multiple registrations from one office, so now’s the time to commit to joining us for our annual gathering (the 34th Annual) of the nation’s leading practitioners of eminent domain, condemnation, valuation, and takings law. There are multiple ways to register, including on line. 

Like in past years, the first day has three tracks: Practice, Substantive, and Condemnation 101. The latter is a one-day course for those new to the field, or as a refresher course for those with more experience. The second day, the 101 attendees will join the advanced course, and we’ll have plenary sessions in the morning, followed by Practice and Substantive tracks in the p.m. As always, attendees are free to move among …

Continue Reading ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, San Diego, January 26-28, 2017: Final Brochure

Here are two cases about a topic that’s been getting a lot of traction lately in legal circles: how to deal with the so-called sharing economy. You know, things like Uber, Lyft, Air BnB, and … DogVacay. [Sidebar: that last one reminds of us Jack Handey’s faux sponsor of SNL‘s “Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer” series, “Dog Assassin” (“When you can’t bear to put him to sleep, maybe it’s time to call … Dog Assassin.”)].

This is such a developing area right now that our section of the ABA (State and Local Government Law) has formed a Sharing Economy Committee to try to discover what the rules are and should be. Ping me if you want to be a part of this group — all are welcome

Uber, Air BnB, and DogVacay aren’t taxis, or hotels, or dog walking services, they say. But they…

Continue Reading Peak Posner At The 7th Circuit: Cab Companies Were Chumps To Rely On A Govt Monopoly To Protect Them From Competition

Here’s the amici brief we’re filing in a case which we told you about earlier, involving the way attorneys’ fees get calculated when a statute allows fee shifting. 

This is the afterglow of a rails-to-trails takings case, in which the property owners are entitled under the Uniform Relocation Act to attorneys’ fees. We like. 

What we didn’t like was the way the trial court arbitrarily cut the property owners’ fee request, without ever explaining why. The court simply made an across-the-board percentage reduction from the “lodestar” (a reasonable hourly rate times a reasonable time per task). And the Federal Circuit affirmed. 

So the property owners sought cert review, and now we’ve filed a brief in support. Our brief focuses on the first Question Presented: “Whether trial courts have discretion to make across-the-board percentage adjustments to the lodestar fee and, if so, what “specific proof” or “explanation” must the…

Continue Reading SCOTUS Amicus Brief: Court Can’t Arbitrarily Reduce A Lawyer’s “Stock In Trade”

We were getting ready to dig into the California Court of  Appeal’s opinion in 616 Croft Ave., LLC v. City of West Hollywood, No. B266660 (Sep. 23, 2016), when our ABA State and Local Government Law colleague Bryan Wenter wrote up the case on his firm’s land use blog, saving us the trouble.

The opinion is, in his words, “the first reported appellate decision to rely upon the broad holding of the California Supreme Court’s blockbuster 2015 affordable housing case, California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose, and it boldly highlight the far reaching implications of that ruling.” As Bryan writes, “it also underscores the ongoing need for the United States Supreme Court to finally address whether the heightened scrutiny of the Nollan, Dolan, and Koontz Fifth Amendment takings cases applies to legislatively imposed permit conditions.”

Go read Bryan’s summary and excellent analysis…

Continue Reading Cal App: In-Lieu Housing Fee Isn’t An “Exaction,” And Isn’t A Taking

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following, and which earlier resulted in a very good decision from the North Carolina Supreme Court. 

In Kirby v. North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation, No 56PA14-2 (June 10, 2016), the N.C. Supreme Court held that the “Map Act,” a statute by which the DOT designated vast swaths of property for future highway acquisition, was a taking because the act prohibited development of designated properties in the interim. The court concluded that “[t]hese restraints, coupled with their indefinite nature, constitute a taking of plaintiffs’ elemental property rights by eminent domain.” The court remanded the case for a parcel-by-parcel determination of just compensation.

Here’s the trial court’s Order on remand, granting in part the plaintiffs’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on inverse condemnation liability, and ordering the NCDOT to “file plats, make deposits with the required statutory interest, and, if any plaintiff…

Continue Reading NC Map Act: DOT Ordered To Pay For Designating Property For Future Highway Use (But Then Not Taking It)

ALI2017 - Copy
 ALI2017

We’ve teased some of the details on the 2017 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation and Condemnation 101 Conference, to be held at the Westin San Diego, January 26-28, 2017, but here are the details you’ve been waiting for.

This is the “big one,” our annual 3-day festival of all things eminent domain, property, takings, inverse condemnation, and just compensation. Truly national in scope, this is the 34th annual edition, and the one conference you must attend. Our 2016 conference in Austin was one of the best in years, and we’re on the way to replicating it in 2017, with a great venue in an exciting city. 

Look for the web and printed brochures to show up in your mailboxes, but in the meantime, here are some of the highlights (we’ll post more in the next few days):

  • Relocation, relocation, relocation: we are featuring two sessions on this

…
Continue Reading Details: ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Conference – San Diego, January 26-28, 2017