Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.

No. 52 Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, Maryland

Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Does a takings claim under the Maryland Constitution accrue at the time of a stayed administrative decision or at the time of a final judicial decision affirming that result? 2) May a regulatory taking become permanent and stabilized before a court of proper jurisdiction determines the validity of the regulation effecting the taking? 3) Should Petitioner’s takings claim be dismissed based on Petitioner’s failure to raise this constitutional issue in any administrative proceeding? 4) Did the decision of the Harford County Board of Appeals prohibiting a proposed use of Petitioner’s land to protect the public constitute a taking for which compensation is due? 5) Does the jury’s damages award as compensation for an unconstitutional taking contravene Maryland law when the damages are not the fair…

Continue Reading Upcoming Arguments In Maryland Takings Case – 10am ET, Tuesday, March 10, 2020

A group of property owners acquired several parcels in the Windsor, Ontario (Canada) area over the years, “with the aim of developing the lots for residential purposes.”

The city had other ideas: it wanted the area for a “natural heritage area known as the Spring Garden Complex.” The property owners believed they were entitled to more for the parcels than the city offered, so the city instituted expropriation actions. After some up-and-down in the appeal chain, 

applying the concept which we further south call the “project rule,” the Appeal Tribunal concluded that its task was to determine the value of the expropriated property in the absence of the expropriation. See slip op. at 5 (“The Tribunals’ responsiblity in this case is to assess what impact, if any, the requirements of the PPS would have on the market value of Claimants’ lands if the impacts of the scheme are screened…

Continue Reading Highest And Best Use And The Project Rule, Canadian Style

Continue Reading A Final Appeal (To Attend The ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference), At The Court Of Last Resort

An inversecondemnation.com holiday tradition, updated.Continue Reading Episode IX: The Rise Of Yule Log

(From yesterday’s argument in a tax refund case.)Continue Reading Sotomayor, J., Lays Down The Restatement (Second) Of Kid Law Of Property

We’re not 100% certain of what the issues are in Landowners United Advocacy v. Cordova, No. 19-1126, a case argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit yesterday. 

But from what we can gather from listening between the lines to the OA recording (and reviewing some of the District Court documents here), the case is a federal court takings challenge to something the State of Colorado did, and whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) limited the impact of the federal Tax Anti-Injunction Act, and whether that statute means the plaintiffs here cannot challenge Colorado in federal court, but must proceed in state court. A similar issue was addressed by the Fifth Circuit recently, in the context of the Eleventh Amendment.

Was the majority in Knick telling us that the self-executing nature…

Continue Reading CA10 Oral Argument: “I am a takings law nerd, and I’m going to do my best today to not geek out as I did when the Knick decision came down.”

Continue Reading “This Was Not Written For Chiefs!” Happy Constitution Day

…
Continue Reading Entering Our Fourteenth Year