Penn Central

Subscribe to Penn Central via RSS

Good news, takings fans. The U.S. Supreme Court today granted cert, and will review Murr v. Wisconsin, the case in which the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that two separate parcels owned by the same family must be treated as a single unit for purposes of determining whether there has been a taking. 

The Court agreed to review this Question Presented:

In a regulatory taking case, does the “parcel as a whole” concept as described in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 130-31 (1978), establish a rule that two legally distinct, but commonly owned contiguous parcels, must be combined for takings analysis purposes?

Cert petition posted here. Other cert briefs here.

More to come, naturally. 

Related articles
Tennessee Finally Recognizes Regulatory Takings Cause Of Action – A Quarter Century After The US Supreme Court Wrongly Assumed It Did
Horne

…
Continue Reading SCOTUS To Take On Regulatory Takings Parcel As A Whole Doctrine

ALI-CLE-2016-masthead

Here’s our second day of highlights from the upcoming American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation / Condemnation 101 Conference, which will be held in Austin, Texas, from January 28-30, 2016.  

This is the first time the conference has been to Austin, and we’re hoping for a good turnout. Here’s the full agenda for the program. 

  • We especially focused on the ethics component this year, and are looking forward to the session on “Ethics: Tips and Traps for the Eminent Domain Practitioner” at the first plenary session on the second day, taught by Jamila A. Johnson (Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Seattle), Robert B. Neblett, (Jackson Walker L.L.P., Austin). and Joseph V. Sherman (Waldo & Lyle, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia). 
  • Pipeline takings are a huge issue, and we’ve got the lawyers on the very tip of the spear on these cases. “Pipelines and Energy

…
Continue Reading More On The Upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference (Austin, Jan 28-30, 2016)

One for all you civil procedure and jurisdiction wonks. The background facts are a bit detailed, so please bear with us. 

Normandy Apartments in Tulsa, Oklahoma made a series of agreements with the federal government: in return for Normandy agreeing to rent to low-income Section 8 tenants and maintain the premises, the Department of Housing and Urban Development would pay the difference between the tenant’s contribution and the rent. The last of these agreements was not with HUD, but with the Oklahoma Housing Finance Authority, although the terms were essentially the same. Normandy also agreed with HUD that in return for renting to low-income tenants, Normandy could prepay its HUD-backed mortgage. Like the Section 8 contract, this agreement obligated Normandy to maintain the premises, a standard enforced by HUD inspections.

Normandy failed several inspections, and after some back-and-forth about whether Normandy was entitled to correct the alleged failings, HUD informed it…

Continue Reading Fed Cir On Judicial Estoppel, The Tucker Act Shuffle, And Penn Central

In 1989, agents of the Libyan government blew up a plane of civilians, killing 170 passengers and crew. Victims’ families brought suit against the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in U.S. District Court in D.C. for damages, and after winning summary judgment, the court entered judgments totaling approximately $1.3 billion. Libya appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

The very day the appeal was filed, the U.S. government and Libya entered into a settlement agreement which established a $1.5 billion settlement fund to compensate U.S. victims, and a $300 million fund to compensate “Libyan victims of U.S. airstrikes.” The two governments agreed that the funds were in full settlement of all claims for its respective nationals. As a consequence of this agreement, all pending lawsuits in the courts were “terminated.” The U.S. intervened in the D.C. Circuit appeal, and asked the court to dismiss. The court agreed, and terminated the appeal…

Continue Reading CFC: Terrorism Victims Properly Alleged Their Judgments Against Libya Were Taken By Govt Settling Claims By Agreement

Here’s the recently-published brochure with more details about the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation LItigation conference, set for Austin in January 2016. 

In the coming days and weeks, we’ll be posting more details about the conference. Our co-planning chairs Joe Waldo, Jack Sperber, and Andrew Brigham have assembled a great agenda, taught by the usual stellar faculty. If eminent domain, appraisal, or land use is your thing, you really should attend. 

33d Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Jan. 28-30, 2016, Austin, TX

Continue Reading ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Conference: Full Brochure

ALI-CLE-2016-masthead

Here’s the full agenda for the 2016 Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation / Condemnation 101 Conference, January 28-30, 2016, in Austin, Texas. 

Together with our friend and colleague Joe Waldo, we think we’re put together a pretty good program that covers a lot of ground. This is the first time the conference has been to Austin, and we’re starting off with a talk by Austin Mayor Steve Adler, who in his former life was an eminent domain lawyer. Other highlights:

  • Professor Ilya Somin will speak about his recently-published book in a segment entitled “The Impact of Kelo and the Limits of Eminent Domain.”
  • “Pipelines and Energy Corridors: Valuation Perspectives of Condemnors and Condemnees” with the lawyers on the front lines of one of the hottest topics in eminent domain law nationwide.
  • Retired Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul H. Anderson will give us his tips

…
Continue Reading It’s Here – 2016 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference: Complete Agenda, Faculty, Registration Information

Check this out, a story in the September 28, 2015 edition of the New York Times, “Owner of Grand Central Sues Developer and City for $1.1 Billion Over Air Rights.”

Reminds us of this obscure Supreme Court case we heard about…

The Times reports that the current owner of Grand Central Terminal is, with the counsel of uberlawyers, suing New York City in federal court, alleging a taking and related. So what’s this all about (we thought this was “old, unhappy, far-off things, And battles long ago”)?

Apparently, the city granted a Grand Central neighbor permission to build a massive 1500 feet high office tower, and in doing so, took Grand Central’s property (its air rights) without compensation:

On Monday, Mr. Penson filed a $1.1 billion lawsuit in United States District Court in Manhattan that argued that the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat…

Continue Reading Penn Central, Part Deux? A New Complaint Alleges A Taking Of Grand Central Air Rights

We’re continuing our Detroit-themed posts today, with this one about auto bailouts and takings.

We generally don’t post trial court decisions, preferring to wait until we have a published opinion from a court of appeals. But from time to time, we have made exceptions, like here, where the counsel involved are well-known and the issue looks like one that might eventually go up the chain, and indeed has once already.

So it is in Colonial Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 10-647C (Sep. 9, 2015), in which the Court of Federal Claims denied the government’s motion to dismiss a takings claim. The plaintiffs are (former) General Motors and Chrysler dealers whose dealership contracts were sloughed off as part of the $38 billion bailout of the auto manufacturers. As part of the deal, the companies were required to cancel many of their franchise agreements, “forcing the dealerships to close.” According to the plaintiffs, “Chrysler …

Continue Reading CFC: Auto Bailout Could Have Resulted In A Taking Of Dealerships’ Contracts

From the Ninth Circuit, a published opinion in a case challenging a Napa Valley city’s mobilehome rent control ordinance, Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. 12-17749 (Sep. 3, 2015). Here’s a complete summary of the issues in the case, along with the Ninth Circuit merits and amici briefs. We’ve been following it because we filed an amicus brief in support of the property owner’s argument that it pleaded enough to get by a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 

The Ninth Circuit didn’t agree, and affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The panel concluded the case was ripe under Williamson County (an issue that seemed to occupy a lot of the judges’ time at oral arguments), but that the owner’s theory that “even if the taking is for a public purpose, the rent subsidy should be paid by the government if the rent is…

Continue Reading Where’s Palazzolo, Ninth Circuit? Owner Bought Property Subject To Regulation (Just Not These Regulations), So Has No Takings Claim

Takings nerd alert: we posted about this case late last year, when the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that two separate parcels owned by the same family must be treated as a single unit for purposes of determining whether there’s been a taking. Eventually, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review.

So here’s the next step, the cert petititon in Murr v. Wisconsin, No. ___ (filed Aug. 14, 2015), which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review a single Question Presented:

In a regulatory taking case, does the “parcel as a whole” concept as described in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 130-31 (1978), establish a rule that two legally distinct, but commonly owned contiguous parcels, must be combined for takings analysis purposes?

Read this post for more background. Disclosure: the petitioners are represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, and we manage PLF’s Hawaii…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Does The Takings “Denominator” Rule Require Two Parcels To Be Treated As One?