Regulatory takings

Subscribe to Regulatory takings via RSS

There have been five amicus briefs filed supporting the Water Management District’s arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012). That’s the case in which the Supreme Court is considering whether the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards of Nollan and Dolan are applicable only to exactions for land, or whether they are generally-applicable tests for all exactions.

The property owner’s brief on the merits is available here. The Water Management District’s merits brief is posted here.

The amicus briefs just filed focus on the argument that a government demand for money is not an “exaction” that even triggers takings analysis, and if it is, the multifactor Penn Central test governs, not the Nollan–Dolan test.

…
Continue Reading Gov’t Amicus Briefs In Koontz: A Demand For Money Is Not An Exaction (And Even If It Is, Penn Central Is The Test)

Confirming yet again that the shopping mall is the focus of California culture, the California Supreme Court in Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food and Commerical Workers Union Local 8, No. S185544 (Dec. 27, 2012), held that a privately-owned walkway fronting a warehouse-type grocery store is a venue for the airing of grievances, even though it is not a “public forum” for speech under the California Constitution’s free speech provision. Thus, a labor union’s members have no constitutional rights to picket there. However, the court also held that the Moscone Act — a state statute prohibiting courts from issuing injunctions in labor disputes except in limited circumstances — protected union members’ (and no one else’s) rights to picket on this private property.

In other words, the grocery store owner has a right to exclude others from this property, but that right is trumped by the Moscone Act.

If…

Continue Reading Cal Supremes Revisit Pruneyard, But Ignore The Takings Problem

LgoIt’s time for the annual ALI-CLE (fka ALI-ABA) eminent domain conferences, to be held January 24-26, 2013 in Miami Beach, Florida.

In the “advanced” course, Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation, we’ll be covering topics such as “Condemning Underwater Mortgages,” “An Engineer’s Role in Damage,” “How To Develop and Implement a Business Plan for an Eminent Domain Practice,” and “Condemnor Beware: What Activities Will Make You Liable for Pre-Condemnation Damages.” Along with Pacific Legal Foundation’s Jim Burling and Cornell lawprof Robert Hockett, I’ll be speaking on the panel about underwater mortgages. More details on the agenda and the faculty here.

The companion course, Condemnation 101: How to Prepare an Eminent Domain Case, covers the basics of eminent domain law, and although designed as an overview of condemnation law for the beginner or general practitioner, it’s a great refresher course for the seasoned eminent domain lawyer. More…

Continue Reading Upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conferences

Here’s the respondent’s brief in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012). That’s the case in which the Supreme Court is considering whether the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards of Nollan and Dolan are applicable only to exactions for land, or whether they are generally-applicable tests for all exactions.

The respondent’s brief argues that the Water District did not demand an exaction, but merely “suggested a range of ways [the] applicant may [have] become eligible for a development permit.” Br. at 40. The brief argues that because the District could have denied the permit outright, it was fine for it to “suggest” ways that the property owner could convince it to issue the permit, without needing to show that there was some relationship between the suggested mitigation measures and the justification supporting the denial. Thus this was not merely the…

Continue Reading Brief For The Respondent In Koontz: “Mere Obligation To Spend Money Is Not A Taking”

An opinion worth reading. In Galleon Bay Corp. v. Bd. of County Commissioners, No. 3D11-1296 (Dec. 5, 2012), the Florida District Court of Appeal (Third District), held that the trial court improperly applied the “investment-backed expectations” prong of the Penn Central factors, by not treating the parcels at issue separately from the plaintiff’s other parcel which it had developed “decades earlier.” The appeals court reversed the judgment for the County, and remanded the case, instructing the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the property owner and hold a trial on compensation. It’s a long fact pattern with a relatively short opinion. Check it out.

Pay particular attention to note 9 on page 16, for a flavor of what just might have added to the court of appeals’ determination that the law was on the property owner’s side. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the property…

Continue Reading Fla App Applies Penn Central, Finds A Taking: Investment-Backed Expectations Measured Parcel-by-Parcel, Not Against All Property Owned

That was quick. As we predicted (and urged), the Hawaii Supreme Court today without comment rejected the County of Maui’s application for a writ of certiorari, which asked the court to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals decision in in Leone v. County of Maui, No 29692 (June 22, 2012) (Supreme Court order here).

[Practice sidebar: Hawaii has one intermediate appellate court (so we don’t have lower court “splits,” and under Hawaii appellate procedure, the Supreme Court may “accept” or “reject” an “application” for cert based on whether the ICA “gravely erred.”]

In Leone, the ICA held that property owners alleging a Lucas regulatory taking are not required to seek an amendment to the Community Plan (in Maui County, the CP is like a General Plan in other jurisdictions) in order to ripen their takings claims. A CP amendment is a legislative act, and plaintiffs are…

Continue Reading HAWSCT Rejects County’s Argument That Property Owner Must Change The Law To Ripen Takings Claim

We always like reading amicus briefs filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence because they tend to focus on the history of whatever issue they are addressing, and the brief they (along with the Atlantic Legal Foundation and the Reason Foundation) filed in in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012) fits the bill. Check it out.

This looks like the final amicus brief supporting the property owner/petitioner. Now we wait for the respondent’s brief (and amici). Stay tuned.Continue Reading One More Top Side Amicus Brief In Koontz

Here’s what we’re reading today:

  • We know you probably read Professor Gideon Kanner’s blog daily, but in case you missed his thoughts about the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (Dec. 4, 2012), please read them here. Today’s must-read.
  • Today is Pearl Harbor day, so we are linking to our in-person report from last year’s remembrance ceremony.
  • Check out the cert petition in Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co., No. 12678 (Nov. 29, 2012). The question presented is somewhat opaque and we don’t think there’s much chance that it will grab the Court’s attention, but it does involve an interesting issue about pesticide drift and organic certification. The petition challenges the Minnesota Supreme Court’s dismissal of an organic farmer’s nuisance and negligence per se claims because federal regulations do not regulate pesticide drift. Here’s the Court’s

…
Continue Reading Friday Round-Up: Flood Takings, Pearl Harbor, Organic Farming

We’ve talked California raisins before, but the latest is about oysters. Specifically, an oyster farm in a Marin County National Seashore, the Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar visited the place a couple of weeks ago to see if he would be willing to extend the farm’s existing license, which has been in place for decades. No deal, he concluded, despite lobbying efforts on the owner’s behalf by powerful U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. He ordered the farm to shut down in 90 days. 

When that failed, the next step was federal court, and earlier this week the oyster farmer sued in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Here’s the complaint, if you want to read the details. The claims center on federal environmental laws and the Administrative Procedures Act, but yes, there’s the obligatory takings claim, alleging that the order to cease operations was a taking…

Continue Reading What’s The Beef In California Oyster Dispute?