We are distracted today so haven’t had the time to write up our initial thoughts about Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275 (June 22, 2015), the California raisins takings case which the Supreme Court decided yesterday.
So instead we did this video, a take off on those goofy tech “unboxing” videos.
We’ll have more in the traditional format once we have a chance to write something down. Continue Reading Unboxing Video: Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture
In all of today’s excitement about the Court’s opinions in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275, the “raisin takings” case which we posted about earlier, we almost lost sight of the other property rights decision issued by the Court, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, No.13-1175 (June 22, 2015).
The case did not present takings, land use, or eminent domain issues, but we’ve been following along with interest nonetheless, because at stake was the right of a Los Angeles hotel owner to require the police to obtain a warrant before he allowed inspection of the hotel’s guest register. The Court’s majority said yes, hotel owners really do need the opportunity to make the police get a warrant before the police can force the hotel to open up its records.
The opinion by Justice Sotomayor and joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, didn’t talk about property…
Continue Reading Today’s Other Supreme Court Property Rights Decision
… look no further than the above report from The Daily Show.
Yeah, it’s satire and does at times make light of a serious case, but the USDA was trying to defend a regulation that branded the Hornes as “raisin outlaws,” going so far as to hire a private security firm to “investigate the product” that the Hornes were defrauding the government of (dried fruit).
Top off “the world’s most outdated law” with the Ninth Circuit’s ridiculous avoidance after the Supreme Court’s earlier remand (the Takings Clause does not apply with equal force to personal property as it does to land) , and you have the recipe for success and an 8-1 ruling.
…
Continue Reading Here’s Why The Supreme Court Held The Raisin Marketing Order Was Unconstitutional…
Update: here’s more Horne talk, in addition to our own initial thoughts in the above video and this post (“Magna Raisins: 8-1 SCOTUS Says There’s A Taking, But Not All Agree On Remedy“):
Here’s the podcast of our recent talk to the American Bar Association’s Section of State and Local Government Law about the (then) upcoming decision in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275. Transcript here, if you’d prefer to read it.
This is a preview of the decision. But since we made some predictions — several of which bore fruit in today’s opinions — we thought we’d post it while we digest the Court’s opinions.
As you may know, the Court today issued its opinions, with eight justices concluding that the raisin marketing order is a physical taking of property, rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s holding that the physical takings rules do not apply when personal property is involved.
We’ll have more analysis shortly, including a round-up of how other commentators view the case. Stay tuned.
…
Continue Reading Podcast: Leviathan Shrugged? The Supreme Court’s Raisin Takings Case
Here’s one that isn’t about land use, but should be of interest to Hawaii land users, since so much of what we do is tied up in the Administrative Procedures Act.
Hawaii’s APA can be a trap for the unwary: if you run to court to challenge what you believe is the agency’s appealable action, you may be met with a claim that you picked the wrong action, and you needed to exhaust the agency’s own internal administrative appeals process first, and it is now too late to invoke the trial court’s original jurisdiction. And if you err on the side of caution and invoke the agency’s appeal process, you may end up prematurely challenging all sorts of agency decisions when you really didn’t need to. Add to the mix the confusion among many not familiar with this territory — about what type of agency action triggers the ability to appeal…
Opinions reversing grants of summary judgment tend to be unexciting by nature because they are all about whether one side or the other submitted enough evidence to create a factual dispute that a jury must resolve. Civil procedure mavens rejoice, but the substantive law in the opinion can be dry. The latest inverse condemnation case from the Texas Supreme Court, Harris Cnty Flood Control Dist. v. Kerr, No. 13-0303 (June 12, 2015) is no exception, even though it is about (sorry, pun intended) flooding.
The property owners brought an inverse case after their land and homes were repeatedly flooded, blaming the flood control district for approving the development of the land in the first place, even though the district spent a lot of money on flood control. The property is in a flood zone, and the district didn’t require the appropriate mitigation measures when it approved development.
Under Texas…
This just crossed our desk in a case we’ve been following (link includes the numerous merits and amicus briefs filed in the case), the California Supreme Court’s opinion, authored by the Chief Justice in California Building Industry Ass’n v. City of San Jose, No. S212072 (June 15, 2015).
The bottom line is the court agreed that rational basis review is the applicable standard:
As noted at the outset of this opinion, for many decades California statutes and judicial decisions have recognized the critical need for more affordable housing in this state. Over the years, a variety of means have been advanced and undertaken to address this challenging need. We emphasize that the legal question before our court in this case is not the wisdom or efficacy of the particular tool or method that the City of San Jose has adopted, but simply whether, as the Court of Appeal held…
Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, No. F069145 (June 3, 2015), is one especially for you Californians, addressing the somewhat unusual process under state law for challenging a land use action by local government which is claimed to take property.
Under the California Supreme Court’s decision in Hensler v. City of Glendale, 876 P.2d 1043 (Cal. 1994), before a landowner can seek just compensation for a regulatory taking, it must first challenge the validity of the action using the writ of mandate procedure (administrative appeal to all you non-Californians), to allow the agency the chance to rescind the act. The property owner may — but need not — join to the writ of mandate a claim for damages (just compensation), and raise the claims concurrently.
Sometimes plaintiffs do join both claims in a single complaint, sometimes they don’t. Hensler is considered an exception to the usual rule prohibiting…
Continue Reading Cal App: Mandamus Challenge To Validity Of Govt Action Must Include Takings Claim
Third time around for Lost Tree’s takings case against the federal government on this blog.
The first was the Federal Circuit’s decision concluding that a single Florida parcel owned by the plaintiff was the relevant parcel against which the impact of the Corps of Engineers’ denial of a § 404 wetlands dredge and fill permit is to be measured. The court overturned a Court of Federal Claims decision which concluded the relevant parcel was that single plot plus an additional nearby lot, plus “scattered wetlands in the vicinity” also owned by the same owner.
Second was the Court of Federal Claims, which on remand held that there was a taking, and that, after applying either the Lucas total wipeout or the Penn Central ad hoc test (the diminution in value caused by the denial of the permit was 99.4%), the just compensation owed to Lost Tree was in the neighborhood…