Takings

News & Analysis as of

Court Rejects 30 Year Eagle Permit Rule on NEPA Grounds

On August 11, 2015, the US District Court for the Northern District of California remanded a US Fish & Wildlife Service’s (FWS) 2013 final rule that had extended the maximum duration of eagle take programmatic permits under...more

California Drought Prompts Bout Among Regulators and Farmers

As the drought drags on and lawns grow brown across California, a battle is raging over the scope of the State Water Resources Control Board’s authority to restrict the diversion of water from rivers, lakes and...more

30-year Eagle Take Permit Term Remanded on Procedural Grounds

On August 11, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service") had inappropriately relied on a categorical exclusion under the National...more

Avoiding NEPA – Even for “Worthy Goals” – Is Never Advisable

From the very first day of my legal career, clients have asked me some variation of this question: “Why can’t we just prepare a shorter Environmental Assessment (EA) or even issue a Categorical Exclusion (no analysis at all)...more

Court Invalidates 30-Year Permit Provisions of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Eagle Permit Rule on NEPA Grounds

As we discussed in a post from May 2014, the American Bird Conservancy (“ABC”) in 2014 filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“USFWS”) 2013 revisions to its eagle permit rule, alleging violations of...more

Supplement — Curtin’s California Land Use

This Supplement is intended for use in conjunction with Curtin’s California Land Use & Planning Law, Thirty-Fourth Edition (2014), authored by Perkins Coie attorneys Cecily Talbert Barclay and Matthew S. Gray. In lieu of...more

“No Build” Condition On Shopping Center Property Is Compensable Regulatory Taking

The Court of Appeal has squarely held that a prohibition on development of a portion of a shopping center project site, in order to “bank” that property for possible future acquisition, was a temporary taking. (Jefferson...more

Land Use & Natural Resources Case Law Update Second Quarter 2015

Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach - 236 Cal.App.4th 1341 - This case involved the City of Newport Beach’s approval of a mixed-use development project on land located within the coastal zone. Banning...more

If At First You Succeed, Don’t Try, Try, Try Again

The Fifth District Court of Appeal has confirmed that the 90-day statute of limitations under the Subdivision Map Act includes takings claims arising out of Map Act decisions. Honchariw_v._County_of_Stanislaus, No. F069145...more

Don’t Miss This Deadline To File A Regulatory Takings Claim

The Court of Appeal has recently reminded land use practitioners of an important deadline when pursuing a takings claim: A takings challenge based on a land use determination must be filed within 90 days of that determination...more

Inverse Condemnation

Inverse condemnation is a far more complex subject than it may seem at the outset. While condemnation proceedings are initiated by the government to acquire property and pay the owner just compensation, the general rule...more

(US) Limiting the Sky: Is There Space for Drones in Real Estate Law?

Real property is generally conceived of as tangible and two dimensional. We acquire land described by courses and distances in a deed, depicted by lines on a survey. The laws respecting that land are well-formed; most in the...more

Intellectual Property Alert: Federal District Court Affirms Cancellation of “REDSKINS” Marks on Summary Judgment and Holds that...

On July 8, 2015, the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s cancellation of the REDSKINS federal trademark registrations owned by Pro-Football, Inc....more

Expanding Your View of Takings Law

As an eminent domain attorney, when I think about a “takings” claim, I always think about a claim involving someone’s real property. Has the government trespassed onto private property, has it imposed regulations that deny...more

Supreme Court Puts Its “Takings Law” Foot Down

In Horne I, the Supreme Court held that a property owner, facing a governmental enforcement action, can assert as a defense that the action effects a “taking” of one’s property (here, a raisin crop) “without just...more

Supreme Court Update: Horne V. Dep't Of Agriculture (14-275), Kimble V. Marvel Entertainment (13-720), Patel V. City Of Los...

Raisins, radioactive wrists, Red Roof registries, and reformatory roughhousing were all on the Court's radar Monday (it's a very broad radar horizon), as it issued decisions in Horne v. Dep't of Agriculture (14-275), holding...more

The California Raisins Strike Back

Horne v. Department of Agriculture, No. 14-275 (U.S. June 22, 2015) - Why It Matters: In a pro-property rights opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court applies Fifth Amendment “takings” analysis to a federal program that...more

Supreme Court Decides Horne v. Department of Agriculture

On June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Horne v. Department of Agriculture, No. 14-275, holding that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause applies to personal property as well as real property, and a requirement that...more

Horne v. USDA: US Supreme Court Sides with Raisin Farmer

The United States Supreme Court ruled that a USDA marketing order constituted a taking of a raisin farmer's private property for which just compensation is due. This article offers a detailed analysis of the Court's opinion....more

California Supreme Court Holds Inclusionary Zoning Subject to Rational Basis Review

2013 was a banner year for developers under the takings clause, as both the U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court issued decisions expanding the developers’ ability to challenge exactions as unconstitutional. In...more

California Supreme Court Endorses City Authority to Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

On June 15, 2015, in a decision that came as a surprise to many observers, the California Supreme Court unanimously rejected a challenge to San Jose’s inclusionary housing ordinance which had been filed by the California...more

California Supreme Court Upholds Inclusionary Housing Zoning

California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose - Why It Matters: In a much-anticipated ruling, the California Supreme Court has settled for now the question of whether or not a municipality may condition...more

California Supreme Upholds City of San Jose Inclusionary Housing Set-Aside Ordinance

Today, the California Supreme Court unanimously upheld the City of San Jose’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, rejecting a facial constitutional challenge brought in California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. City of...more

How One Misstep Resulted in a $2.5 Million Lesson

Every so often, a decision comes out that makes you stop for a second and take a breath. Generally, these decisions have two essential components: (1) they deal with a statute of limitations; and (2) they involve millions of...more

Big Win for Anti-GMO Groups as Federal Judge Upholds Jackson County GMO Ban

On Friday, Federal Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke partially dismissed a lawsuit brought by commercial alfalfa farmers seeking to overturn a Jackson County ordinance that banned the use of GMO seed stock (“It is a county...more

232 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 10

"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:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×