Once Removed Episode 10: Trustee Removal and Case Update on Leo Kahn Revocable Trust
Red Hot Apartment Investment Market Starts to Cool
State Land Use Board Weighs in on Oregon Coast Fight Over Short Term Rentals
Developing Philly: The State of Philadelphia's Tax Abatements in 2022
Title Insurance and Your Transaction
Lead Exposure Claims: Proactive Strategies for Effective Resolution
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 319: Listen and Learn -- Negligence: Duties of Landlords, Owners, and Possessors of Land
Law Brief®: Robert Wolf, Alexander Tiktin and Richard Schoenstein Discuss the Continuing Foreclosure/Eviction Moratorium
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 149: Listen and Learn -- Negligence: Duties of Landlords, Owners, and Possessors of Land
Eminent Domain: First Principles, Kelo, and In Service of Infrastructure Buildout
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 310: Listen and Learn -- Adverse Possession
Managing Apartment Turnover: From Launch to $10M Series A, with Rent Ready's Jonathan Kite
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 144: Listen and Learn -- Adverse Possession
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 305: Listen and Learn -- Property Crimes
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 140: Listen and Learn -- Regulatory Takings
On-Demand Webinar | Living on the Edge: Managing Sea Level Rise in California
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 122: Listen and Learn -- Easements (Real Property)
On-Demand Webinar | Eminent Domain in 2020: A Year in Review
Design-Build: Everything That Was Old Is New Again
Law Brief: Your Ad Here: Outdoor Advertising and the Law
In the case of N. Ridgeville v. Zilka, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 23CA012047, 2024-Ohio-2468, Ohio’s Ninth District Court of Appeals addressed the ability of a property owner in an eminent domain action to recover attorney fees...more
In a significant Takings Clause opinion, Darby Development Company, Inc. v. United States, the Federal Circuit sided with landlords who argued that the CDC’s eviction moratorium constituted a physical taking of their...more
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
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that may significantly affect how development impact fees are assessed in California. In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the Court unanimously held that...more
In a typical permitting process, the local government may place certain conditions on issuing a building permit to further a legitimate public purpose. While the local government has “substantial authority to regulate land...more
In August 2016, AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C., AWMS Holdings L.L.C., and AWMS Rt. 169, L.L.C. (collectively, “Appellants”) filed their original writ of mandamus to commence property-appropriation proceedings since, in their...more
In a highly-anticipated case revolving around development impact fees, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 144 S.Ct. 893 (2024) that legislatively-imposed conditions on building permits...more
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has again rejected a state's narrow interpretation of the constitutional limits on government's ability to impose development conditions. A unanimous SCOTUS ruled on April 12 in favor of the...more
Undoubtedly, development impact fees (DIFs) can make or break the pro forma of any development project. Until this month, developers hoping to challenge the assessment of project-related DIFs were often limited in the causes...more
The unanimous opinion holds that development impact fees established through the legislative process are subject to constitutional scrutiny as potential regulatory takings. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the...more
When the government wants to take private property for a public project, it must compensate the owner at fair market value. The just compensation concept comes from the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which provides: “nor...more
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, in which the Court held that for the purpose of a takings claim there is no distinction in whether permit conditions...more
It is rare for the Supreme Court to decide cases involving the Constitution’s Takings Clause, and, indeed, not uncommon for the Court to go years without considering the Clause at all; so, when the Court issues two decisions...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued two decisions on Tuesday, April 16: Rudisill v. McDonough, No. 22-888: This case concerns the interaction between two federal statutes providing up to 36 months of...more
The Sheetz v. County of El Dorado decision will create uncertainty in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and many other states as cities, counties, developers and property owners reexamine whether existing impact fee...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land‑use permit conditions. Building permit...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 12, 2024, that the "Takings Clause" enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies equally to legislative and administratively imposed land use permitting fees. Since...more
The U.S. Supreme Court last week unanimously held that the Takings Clause of the Constitution prevents legislatures, as well as administrative agencies, from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits....more
On April 12, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sheetz v. Cnty. Of El Dorado, California, 22-1074 (U.S. Apr. 12, 2024) and unanimously held that legislative actions can still be unconstitutional exactions...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court delivered its highly-anticipated opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, unanimously holding that fees imposed through legislative action as a condition of property...more
On April 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided DeVillier v. Texas, No. 22-913, holding that owners of property north of U.S. Interstate Highway 10 adversely affected by the flood evacuation barrier constructed by Texas...more
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-anticipated ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, U.S. No. 22-1074 (petition for certiorari granted 9/29/23) (Sheetz). The case concerned the...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided Sheetz v. El Dorado County, No. 22-1074, holding that the Takings Clause “does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions,” but instead...more
Some commentators claim there are bitter divisions among the Justices, roiling the Court and its processes. Many of the same commentators were critical of the Court’s decision holding that former President Trump was not...more
B&D is pleased to present the next installment of our 2024 Litigation Look Ahead series. (Read part three covering administrative enforcement issues here.) In this edition, our litigation team examines two Fifth Amendment...more