On-Demand Webinar | Eminent Domain in 2020: A Year in Review
We’ve been closely watching the Sheetz v. County of El Dorado case, which has worked its way up through the California trial and appellate courts all the way to the US Supreme Court. For a quick refresher, the case concerns...more
A hotel owner brought a lawsuit against a county transportation authority and a general contractor for nuisance and inverse condemnation alleging that the construction of an underground subway line disrupted the operation of...more
Multiple applications for a development project are not required where the first permit denial makes clear that no development of the property would be allowed under any circumstance. Felkay v. City of Santa Barbara, No....more
On August 17, 2020, in Martis Camp Community Association v. County of Placer, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2020) (Case Nos. C087759 and C087778), the Third District Court of Appeal addressed several novel legal claims arising from the...more
Russellville Legends, LLC, (“RLL”) filed a July 29th Complaint for Declaratory Judgment or Alternatively for Damages (“Complaint”) in the United States District Court (Eastern District Arkansas) against the United States Army...more
When the government physically takes or occupies property without first going through the rigorous procedural requirements under California eminent domain law, usually it’s a clear-cut case of inverse condemnation liability. ...more
In a published opinion filed September 18, 2018, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) affirmed a judgment granting a writ setting aside the City of San Diego’s (City) decision to subject a coastal development permit...more
When a governmental agency improperly denies a permit application for a new development, and the proposed development is thereby delayed, does this result in a regulatory taking? ...more
When state and local governments impose unreasonable conditions or exactions on private property, owners pursuing a regulatory takings claim often face a maze of procedural obstacles just to have their case heard. ...more
As we’ve seen all too many times in California, when local municipalities delay development approvals — even improperly — courts are reluctant to find liability under an inverse condemnation cause of action and award...more
Infrastructure projects take years to develop: the environmental review, funding, design, procurement, and construction of a public project is time consuming in any state, but even more so in California given the strict...more
We don’t often see multiple takings-related cases in one week, but last week we saw three. The California Supreme Court’s decision in Property Reserve was obviously the most important, but the Fourth Appellate District Court...more
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
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