Welcome to 'Just Compensation'
Eminent Domain: First Principles, Kelo, and In Service of Infrastructure Buildout
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 140: Listen and Learn -- Regulatory Takings
#WorkforceWednesday: Mandatory Vaccination, Tipped Worker Rule, and SCOTUS Rules Against Organized Labor - Employment Law This Week®
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just...more
I have to give it to creative, resilient lawyers (and in fact, I have lauded them in the past). When the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Allen v. Cooper, 140 S.Ct. 994 (2020), a decision holding that the...more
The Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from depriving an owner of private property for public use without “just compensation.” Governmental action burdening private property does not always...more
A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concerned a nightmare scenario for any property owner. The plaintiffs sought to rebuild their beachfront house after it was destroyed. Originally...more
First wrongful death lawsuit from COVID-19 filed against employer. Despite Walmart taking extensive measures to protect "associates and customers, including additional cleaning measures, installing sneeze guards at...more
A New York Appellate Court (Fourth Department) (“Court”) addressed in a November 8th Order an action filed by a potential purchaser of a 50 acre parcel of property against the Town of Carroll, New York alleging a taking...more
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The California Constitution contains a similar provision. Reading these constitutional...more
Public infrastructure projects are on the rise, from new transit systems to comprehensive highway renovations and everything in between. Behind the scenes, some governmental body is fast at work acquiring private land along...more
For landowners, learning that the government intends to take their property is always a rude awakening. After receiving notice that the government seeks to acquire a piece of land, the landowner sets off on a difficult...more
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
The stakes could not be higher; would the property yield one or two waterfront building lots? On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States decided a case that involved the merger of two parcels of property...more
The taking of private property for public use is referred to as condemnation or eminent domain. While federal, state, and municipal governments may unilaterally take private property for public use, landowners are...more
In Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, 2017 WL 2694699 (U.S.S.C. June 23, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, addressed "one of the critical questions" in the law of regulatory takings:...more
In Murr v. Wisconsin, the US Supreme Court declined to find that a landowner's riverfront property was the subject of a regulatory taking. In a 5-3 decision, the majority adopted a new test for defining the bounds of the...more
In an interesting twist, eight members of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on June 23, 2017, in the case of Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, that state regulations making two adjoining lots held in common ownership into a single...more
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
The United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States government cannot take a citizen’s raisins without paying for them. Horne v. Department of Agriculture, __ US__ (June 22, 2015). Standing alone, the ruling is...more
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
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
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
In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, a landmark decision (as Supreme Court decisions often are) that drastically slashed the...more