Latest Posts › Takings Clause

Share:

Supreme Court Issues Another Important Property Rights Decision

On June 28, 2021, the Supreme Court issued Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, 594 U.S. ____ (2021), a unanimous per curiam opinion vacating a ruling by the Ninth Circuit in favor of the City and County of San...more

Supreme Court Issues Major Property Rights Decision in Favor of Landowners, Confirming that Government-Sanctioned Physical...

In a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, __ U.S. __ (2021) (Case No. 20-107), the Supreme Court issued a major property rights decision in favor of landowners in a case addressing...more

County’s Initiative-Enacted General Plan Traffic Mitigation Policies Are Unconstitutional Exactions

On May 4, 2021, in Alliance for Responsible Planning v. Taylor (County of El Dorado), __ Cal.App.5th __ (2021) (Case No. C085712), the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court decision invalidating as a violation...more

Santa Barbara Liable for Taking Private Property When its Permit Denial Made Clear no Development Would be Allowed

In a case that exists only because of the choices a city made in both application decision-making and litigation, the Second District Court of Appeal held, in Felkay v. City of Santa Barbara, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2021), that...more

Supreme Court Wrestles with Line Drawing in an Important Property Rights Case Addressing Physical Taking Rules in the Context of...

During California’s strawberry harvesting season in the summer of 2015, union activists entered a nursery’s property under the authority granted by a California regulation that allows union organizers to enter the private...more

Supreme Court Again Declines to Hear Major Property Rights Case, Leaving in Place Hopelessly Muddled Takings Doctrine

As former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens famously explained, more than 30 years ago, about the Supreme Court’s takings cases: “Even the wisest of lawyers would have to acknowledge great uncertainty about the...more

Supreme Court Decides to Hear Important Property Rights Case Addressing Whether Time-Limited Easements Are a Physical Taking Under...

On November 13, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order granting certiorari in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. The question presented in the successful cert petition is “whether the uncompensated appropriation of an...more

Takings Challenge to Coastal Commission Setback Condition Fails for Not Presenting “Exact Issue” to the Agency

The California Coastal Act governs land use planning for California’s entire coastal zone, directing the state Coastal Commission to maximize the public access to and along the coast consistent with the rights of property...more

In Major Property Rights Decision, U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Property Owners May Sue in Federal Court Without Seeking a Just...

On June 21, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, 588 U.S. __ (Case No. 17-647), a closely-watched property rights case that was argued first in October of 2018 and...more

Ninth Circuit: “Access Regulation” Allowing Union Organizing Activities on Employers’ Private Property is Not a Fifth Amendment...

On May 8, 2019, in Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma, __ F.3d __ (Case No. 16-16321) (2019), a 2-1 Ninth Circuit panel majority held that a California regulation allowing union organizers access to agricultural employees on...more

Caltrans’ Acceptance of Offer of Dedication by Physical Occupation Does Not Lead to Takings Liability

Takings cases involving transportation agencies such as Caltrans typically involve physical occupations of land under the law of eminent domain. In a twist on such physical occupation, in a case originally filed on December...more

Court Rules in Favor of Coastal Commission and City in Constitutional Challenge to Land Use Plan Amendments

On October 17, 2018, in Beach and Bluff Conservancy v. City of Solana Beach, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2018) (Case No. D072304), the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled against a coastal property owner’s group in its facial...more

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Important Martin’s Beach Public Access Case

On October 1, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Martins Beach 1, LLC v. Surfrider Foundation (Docket No. 17-119), a high-profile property rights case involving Martin’s Beach in the County of San Mateo....more

City’s Mishandling of CEQA and Resulting Construction Delay Does Not Create Takings Liability

In 2005, in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overruled the first prong of a regulatory takings test established 25 years earlier, in Agins v. City of Tiburon. ...more

Court Rejects Residents’ Takings Lawsuits for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is the site of the ancient Portuguese Bend and Abalone Cove landslides, both of which remain active. In 1978, in response to movement of the Abalone Cove landslide, the City adopted an...more

House of Representatives Again Passes Private Property Rights Protection Act

On July 23, 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 1689). Sponsored by Wisconsin Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and California...more

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Requesting Reconsideration of Williamson County’s Unfair and Unworkable State Court...

On March 5, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Knick v. Township of Scott (Case No. 17-647) to address the requirement, established in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S....more

Murr Epilogue: Wisconsin Lawmakers Pass “Homeowners Bill of Rights,” Effectively Reversing Flawed U.S. Supreme Court Decision

Early last summer the U.S. Supreme Court released its long-awaited, and deeply flawed decision in Murr v. Wisconsin, __ U.S. __ (2017). We wrote about this unfortunate new takings case here and in “Missed Opportunity In...more

U.S. Supreme Court Again Declines to Consider Important Property Rights Issue Regarding the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine

The United States Supreme Court has had numerous opportunities in recent years to address an important and unsettled issue under the Takings Clause: whether heightened scrutiny under Nollan, Dolan, and Koontz applies in cases...more

Court Rejects Regulatory Takings and Pre-Condemnation Misconduct Claims Based on Airport Land Use Commission’s Reclassification of...

In Dryden Oaks, LLC v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, __ Cal.App.5th __ (October 19, 2017), the Fourth District Court of Appeal published a previously unpublished opinion addressing both regulatory takings and...more

SCOTUS Announces New Multi-Factor Test to Determine the Relevant Parcel in Regulatory Takings Cases

On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States finally decided Murr v. Wisconsin, __ U.S. __ (2017) (Case No. 15-214), a case that addressed land use regulations that “merged” adjacent parcels (the first of which...more

New Cert Petition Asks SCOTUS if Legislatively Mandated Permit Conditions are Subject to Heightened Scrutiny

Last September we wrote about 616 Croft Ave., LLC v. City of West Hollywood, an opinion from the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District upholding a nearly $555,000 in-lieu fee on an 11-unit residential infill...more

Kelo Gives a Reasonable and Long-Accepted Reading of the Fifth Amendment, but it Remains one of the Supreme Court’s Worst...

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court decided in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), that the Constitution allows the government to take private property through eminent domain for the purpose of “economic...more

Court Rejects Takings Challenge to City’s Imposition of $600,000 in Fees for 11-Unit Infill Project

On September 23, 2016, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed a trial court decision denying a petition for writ of mandate filed by a developer challenging various fees—totaling nearly $600,000—in...more

Impairment of Views From (or to) Private Property Does Not Constitute a Taking Requiring the Payment of Just Compensation

On April 26, 2016, in Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills (Case No.B258459), the Second District Court of Appeal roundly rejecting a takings lawsuit premised on alleged impairment of private views and speculative risk of fire...more

26 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide