Land use law

Subscribe to Land use law via RSS

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

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)

The complete agenda and faculty list has now been posted on the ALI-CLE website, and early registration is open! Go now and reserve your spot. 

We paid a visit to Charleston recently, the venue for our January 2018 conference, to scout it out. We can report that we’re going to have a great time, for sure. When we polled you last year, you selected Charleston as your first choice (a new city for the Conference), and it is shaping up to be a very good selection. In addition to the usual lineup of CLE programming, there are a ton of things to see and do in the area. We recorded a short video down at the “four corners of law” (the intersection of Meeting Street and Broad Street), to give you a preview (the weather was much better than in our 2016 preview video, too).

As an added…

Continue Reading 2018 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference – Agenda And Faculty Now Posted

This just in: the Hawaii Supreme Court has rendered a unanimous opinion in Leone v. County of Maui, No. SCAP-15-599 (Oct. 16, 2017), a case we’ve naturally been following because it involves regulatory takings (and we were involved in a similar case on a neighboring property). 

We haven’t had a chance to review the 48-page opinion in detail (once we do so, we will post a more detailed review), but the issue the court was presented with was, as we noted here, whether leaving land in its vacant state court be considered an economically beneficial use. Short story is that the court held yes, it could, thus seeming to create a lower court split (hello, cert petition) with at least one other court, the Federal Circuit in Lost Tree, concluding that economically beneficial use means more than someone might buy it down the road. 

There’s…

Continue Reading Conflict Check: Hawaii Adds To Lower Court Regulatory Takings Split: Is Leaving Land Vacant On The Hope It Is Worth More In The Future “Economically Beneficial Use”?

ALI-CLE2018

It’s not too early to reserve your spot at the 35th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, to be held at the Francis Marion Hotel in historic downtown Charleston, South Carolina, January 25-27, 2018. 

We’re finalizing the Conference details, but can report that the program will, as usual, feature expert presenters from across the nation, and both an in-depth update on the subjects we love, and a “101” track for those new to the field or who would appreciate a refresher. Check out some of the topics:

  • Takings and Damaging by Flood: Case Selection Advice For Savvy Practitioners
  • Quarterbacking the Case: Blocking Defenses, Controlling the Witnesses, and Converting for Verdicts
  • We’ve Been Working on the Railroad: Utility Crossing Disputes
  • Protecting Your Record,and Anticipating Appeals
  • Lucas 25 Years Later: Property Rights in the Age of Global Warming
  • Building and Growing Your Eminent Domain Practice With

…
Continue Reading 2018 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference: Early-Bird Registration Discount Now Posted

DSCF3369

Back when the opinion was first released, we posted a list of Murr v. Wisconsin links. Now that Court is nearly back from its summer vacation, here’s an updated list:

Will there be more? No doubt. Murr is the takings case that keeps on giving. Continue Reading The Takings Case That Keeps On Giving: Murr Round-Up, Continued

We get that chicken and egg vibe from the California Court of Appeal’s opinion in Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC, No. A144268 (Aug. 9, 2017), a case that has been in the hopper for a while, but due to this-and-that we haven’t gotten around to posting about until now.

Our procrastination has allowed our colleagues at the California Eminent Domain Report to beat us to the punch with trenchant analysis, and Brad Kuhn has posted “Court Holds Temporary Injunction on Martins Beach Access Dispute Does Not Constitute a Taking.”

We say “chicken and egg” because the question in the case

Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC, No. A144268 (Cal. App. Aug. 9, 2017) 

Continue Reading Cal App: Temporarily Forcing Public Access To Private Property Isn’t A Taking

IMG_20170811_095148
Regulato Takings!

A modest but very knowledgeable crowd joined us today at the ABA Annual Meeting in New York for a panel discussion and analysis of Murr v. Wisconsin. Here is the recording of our portion of the presenation (10mb mp3).

Here are links to some of the materials which we and the others discussed: 

Continue Reading Murr v. Wisconsin Sound Bytes From The ABA Annual Meeting Program