Regulatory takings

Subscribe to Regulatory takings via RSS

Whatpropertydoes

Worth checking out: Christopher Serkin, What Property Does, 75 Vand. L. Rev. 891 (2022).

Covering (inter alia) property, rule against perpetuities, adverse possession, Lucas background principles, judicial and regulatory takings, Mahon v. Keystone Bituminous, and vested rights and amortization of preexisting uses.

Here’s the abstract:

For centuries, scholars have wrestled with seemingly intractable problems about the nature of property. This Article offers a different approach. Instead of asking what property is, it asks what property does. And it argues that property protects people’s reliance on resources by moderating the pace of change. Modern scholarly accounts emphasize voluntary transactions as the source and purpose of reliance in property. Such “transactional reliance” implies strong, stable, and enduring rights. This Article argues that property law also reflects a very different source of reliance on resources, one that rises and falls simply with the passage of time. This new category…

Continue Reading New Article: Serkin, “What Property Does,” 75 Vand. L. Rev. 891 (2022)

Book_475

In case you have not already obtained your printed copy (you really should subscribe), it is now available in pdf format.

The theme for the issue is “Where Theory Meets Practice,” and with articles on “Property Beyond Flatland,” “Property Rights and the Modern Resurgence of Rent Control,” “Hurdles to Just Compensation,” “Implied Preemption in the Regulation of Land,” and “‘Equitable Compensation’ as ‘Just Compensation’ for Takings.” And more.

Check out the complete article list here, or below.

And don’t forget to mark your calendars for the 2022 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, in Williamsburg and the William and Mary Law School, September 29-30, 2022. Plan on joining us in the fall for what is, in our opinion, the best single-day conference on property rights.

Table of Contents, Brigham-Kanner Prop. Rts. J. vol. 10 (2021) Continue Reading Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Journal Vol. 10 Now Available

Its deja vu all over again: like it did just a short while back, in Lafave v. City of New Orleans, No. 21-30358 (June 1, 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit once again has rejected a takings claims “based on the city’s failure to honor a judgment of the Louisiana state courts.” Slip op. at 1.

Unlike the previous case, here the judgment being dishonored was not for just compensation, but a state court order that “call[ed] for the return of personal property acquired by the government unlawfully.” Id.

Here’s the story. New Orleans likes traffic cameras, and “used mail to collect fines for traffic violations captured by street cameras.” A class action lawsuit challenged the scheme, and eventually a Louisiana court determined the city lacked the authority to designate the Department of Public Works (and not the police department) as the enforcement authority.

Continue Reading The Keepings Clause: CA5 (Again) Throws Up Its Hands When Local Gov Refuses To Pay Back Money It Owes

Austinairport

Here’s what we’re reading today:

Continue Reading Tuesday Round-Up: Austin Airport Taking Its Own Land?, The Right To Exclude, And More

Here’s one we’ve been following since its inception, even before we joined the law firm that represents the property owner. (And because our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues are repping the plaintiffs in this one, we won’t be commenting in-depth.)

You may remember that in Gunderson v. Indiana, 90 N.E.3d 171 (Ind. 2018), the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that the public owns the land up to the ordinary high water mark on Lake Michigan, and had done so all the way back to statehood in 1816. Problem is, according to some lakefront property owners, “undisputed local, state, and federal acknowledgement over the years” was otherwise – the law said that lakefront land was was private, not public, down to the ordinary low water mark. Thus, the plaintiffs alleged, “the Gunderson judgment changed the law of the State of Indiana, as recognized by prior Indiana court precedent as well…

Continue Reading CA7: Like Other Circuits, We’re Going To Dodge The Judicial Takings Question

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Nowlin v. Pritzker, No. 21-1279 (May 20, 2022), adds to a long line of rulings denying takings claims for coronavirus-related business shutdowns. 

This one challenged the Illinois governor’s executive orders which required “non-essential” businesses to shut down or reduce operations, and limited the size of gatherings. The plaintiffs brought the usual host of constitutional claims (a total of six), which included (naturally) a takings claim. The district court, after granting leave to allow the filing of an amended complaint, dismissed all six claims, concluding either that the plaintiffs had not alleged particularized injuries (and thus lacked standing, and thus the court lacked jurisdiction), or that the complaint failed to state claims.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed that all claims, with the exception of the takings claims, lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had not alleged specific injuries. The court subject…

Continue Reading CA7: Co-19 Shutdown Complaint Does Not Meet “Demanding test for alleging a regulatory taking”

In FTB Everett Realty, LLC v. Mass. Gaming Comm’n, No. SJC-13196 (May 23, 2022), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court revived a property owner’s Penn Central takings claim, reversing the trial court grant of summary judgment to the Commission.

This one deals with the intricacies of gambling law and the process necessary to approve the operation of a casino — subjects that we can’t claim to fully understand — so bear with us if there are any inaccuracies.

FBT purchased vacant land which was contaminated and required extensive cleanup. It looked into a variety of possible uses, including a storage facility or big box retain. But two years later, Massachusetts legalized casino gambling and created the Commission. Its duties include issuing gambling licenses.

A branch of the Wynn casino operation wanted the property. It entered into an option agreement with FBT under which it would buy the land if Wynn…

Continue Reading Mass SJC Revives Penn Central Takings Claim Because Casino Comm’n Might Have Altered The Deal

Here’s a pretty rare one: a trial court entering summary judgment on liability in favor of the property owner in a takings case. Yes, you read that right.

And to top it off, this ruling comes in a case in which the taking alleged was a police invasion and destruction of a home for the valid public purpose of apprehending a holed-up criminal, a brand of claim that has not met with a whole lot of success. See, for example, this case from the Tenth Circuit, and this case from the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

In this order, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas held the City of McKinney liable for a physical taking. The entire order is worth reading, but here are some of the highlights.

…
Continue Reading District Court: City Liable For Physical Taking For Destroying Home While Apprehending A Criminal

Screenshot 2022-05-13 at 14-45-41 The Impact of Knick on Regulatory Takings and Those Pesky Lucas Exceptions - Property

Check this out: Pepperdine lawprof Shelley Saxer has a piece in Jotwell, “The Impact of Knick on Regulatory Takings and Those Pesky Lucas Exceptions,” a review of U. Hawaii lawprof David Callies’ book, “Regulatory Takings After Knick.”

The review is short and to the point, so we suggest you read it. But here’s a teaser:

This small but mighty book offers a concise history and understanding of takings jurisprudence as it stood before and after the Knick decision. It brings clarity to a convoluted chronicle of takings litigation and presents specific situations where litigants have asserted a total taking claim and the defense has relied on the various exceptions to Lucas.

Don’t miss it.Continue Reading Lawprof Saxer On Jotwell: “The Impact of Knick on Regulatory Takings and Those Pesky Lucas Exceptions”

In City of Baytown v. Schrock, No. 20-0309 (May 13, 2022), the Texas Supreme Court held that it isn’t a taking when a city, in violation of state law, cuts off utility services to property.

The issue, as the court restated it, was “whether a claim of economic harm to property resulting from the improper enforcement of a municipal collection ordinance alleges a regulatory taking.” Slip op. at 6. Schrock owned property in Baytown on which he had a mobile home he planned to rent. The water bill wasn’t paid, and Baytown has an ordinance that requires property owners to guarantee utility payments, or file a statement that the owner would not guarantee these payments. Schrock didn’t file a disavowal statement until after had already assessed him nearly two grand for unpaid water bills. Slip op. at 3. 

He didn’t pay, so when one one of Schrock’s prospective tenants…

Continue Reading Texas: City Illegally Cutting Off Utilities Isn’t A Taking – It Needs To Be Regulating “Land Use”