Check your mailboxes, the latest edition of the University of Hawaii Law Review is there or is coming. Got ours yesterday. This is the issue with the articles from the symposium (including ours on the ridesharing takings cases) on legal issues in the “sharing economy.”Continue Reading U. Hawaii Law Review Issue On Sharing Economy Issues (Including Takings!) Published
This just in: the Hawaii Supreme Court has rendered a unanimous opinion in Leone v. County of Maui, No. SCAP-15-599 (Oct. 16, 2017), a case we’ve naturally been following because it involves regulatory takings (and we were involved in a similar case on a neighboring property).
We haven’t had a chance to review the 48-page opinion in detail (once we do so, we will post a more detailed review), but the issue the court was presented with was, as we noted here, whether leaving land in its vacant state court be considered an economically beneficial use. Short story is that the court held yes, it could, thus seeming to create a lower court split (hello, cert petition) with at least one other court, the Federal Circuit in Lost Tree, concluding that economically beneficial use means more than someone might buy it down the road.
There’s
University of Hawaii Law School Professor David Callies last night was presented with William and Mary Law School’s Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize which is “presented annually to a scholar, practitioner or jurist whose work affirms the fundamental importance of property rights.”
As W&M notes about Professor Callies, a “prolific scholar whose work explores land use, property, and state and local government law, Callies has lectured around the world and authored or collaborated on about 90 articles and 20 books. He has been a member of the prestigious American Law Institute since 1990 and is the Benjamin A. Kudo Professor of Law at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. Prior to entering academia, he was an attorney in private practice and an assistant state’s attorney.”
We’re spending today in a series of panels which explore and build upon Professor Callies’ lifetime of work. Michael Berger, a past Prize winner, kicked off
It’s not too early to reserve your spot at the 35th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, to be held at the Francis Marion Hotel in historic downtown Charleston, South Carolina, January 25-27, 2018.
We’re finalizing the Conference details, but can report that the program will, as usual, feature expert presenters from across the nation, and both an in-depth update on the subjects we love, and a “101” track for those new to the field or who would appreciate a refresher. Check out some of the topics:
Continue Reading 2018 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference: Early-Bird Registration Discount Now Posted
Back when the opinion was first released, we posted a list of Murr v. Wisconsin links. Now that Court is nearly back from its summer vacation, here’s an updated list:
Will there be more? No doubt. Murr is the takings case that keeps on giving. Continue Reading The Takings Case That Keeps On Giving: Murr Round-Up, Continued
As we’ve noted before, Murr v. Wisconsin is proving to be a boon for CLE providers. And law review editors.
Here’s the latest on the programming front, an upcoming webinar from the American Planning Association, “Murr v. Wisconsin: The Supreme Court’s Latest ‘Take’ on Takings,” Monday, August 14, 2017, 1pm Eastern Time. Continue Reading Even More Murr Programming
If you are scheduled to be in or near New York City on Friday, August 11, 2017, please consider attending one or both of the following events:
Continue Reading ABA CLE, NYC: “Murr and Beyond: Implications for Regulatory Takings” – Aug 11, 2017
The Connecticut Appeals Court’s opinion in Stones Trail, LLC v. Town of Weston, No. AC 38078 (July 18, 2017), does not offer a lot in terms of substance — it holds that a property owner’s regulatory takings claim based on the Town’s approval of what the owner thought was a subdivision was not ripe because the owner had not actually filed a subdivision request — but the facts are interesting nonetheless:
The plaintiff had purchased the property with the purpose of dividing it into six buildable lots. Before the closing of the purchase, the plaintiff submitted three maps of the property to the town. The town’s attorney determined that the property depicted on one of the maps was not a subdivision, and that map was stamped accordingly and filed in the town land records. Thereafter, the other two maps, which altered the lot lines of the property to depict
Load this one up for your morning drive, or workout: the Federalist Society’s podcast on “Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council at 25.” Featuring Professor Eric Claeys, Professor Michael Wolf, and Pacific Legal Foundation’s James Burling. Well worth your time.
Here’s the description:
This spring marks the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. In Lucas, a 5-4 Court majority held that a state law can effect a “regulatory taking” and trigger inverse condemnation requirements if it deprives an owner of all viable uses of his land. Join our panel to hear a discussion of questions such as: Did Lucas mark a major change in Supreme Court regulatory takings doctrine? Was the decision about right, or did it go too far or not far enough? Is Lucas still relevant to regulatory takings law today, and what are the
A couple of weeks ago, we noted that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Murr v. Wisconsin would no doubt be a boon for law review editors. To avoid shirking our duty, we’ve spent the interim doing some writing, adding a drop to the flood. First draft done, posted on SSRN here.
Emphasis on “draft,” so send your comments. Continue Reading Restatement (SCOTUS) of Property: What Happened to Use in Murr v. Wisconsin?
