Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 140: Listen and Learn -- Regulatory Takings
On-Demand Webinar | Eminent Domain in 2020: A Year in Review
More Emerging Litigation Claims and Demands from COVID-19
Regulatory Takings and Executive Power to Seize Property
Real Estate Developer Rights When Cities Demand Too Much
[WEBINAR] Planning in the Coastal Zone
The US Supreme Court has announced it will evaluate whether “impact fees” associated with permits can violate the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. At stake is the determination of when, how, and under what...more
Sullivan's Permitting & Land Use Practice Group and Litigation Department have released the second issue of their Zoning and Development Newsletter. The publication aims to provide our firm's clients and others interested...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following two per curiam decisions: Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 20-1212: Petitioners are partial owners of a multiunit residential building in...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to decide whether a California regulation allowing union organizers to access employers’ property is an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment....more
The State of Hawaii Land Use Commission’s reversion of 1,060 acres from a conditional urban land use classification to the prior agricultural use classification was not an unconstitutional taking because the landowner could...more
Last year, the United States Supreme Court made headlines (at least in our eminent domain world) by issuing a ruling in Knick v. Township of Scott that property owners can bypass the state courts and directly file a Fifth...more
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
The Supreme Court of the United States issued two decisions today: U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge L.L.C., No. 15-1509: Respondent Lakeridge filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and sought approval of a “cramdown” plan...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
A fundamental precept of American law is the authority of the government, in the exercise of the police power for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public, to regulate the conduct of individuals in the...more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently decided the case Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214 (June 23, 2017), which laid out a new test for determining whether separate parcels of land should be evaluated as a single parcel...more
Last week, the United States Supreme Court in Murr v. Wisconsin issued a key regulatory takings decision which creates a new multifactor balancing test to determine whether two adjacent properties with single ownership could...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
Property owners who allege a regulatory taking will now need to analyze their holdings against a new, fact-specific, three-factor standard announced by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine what constitutes the owners’ “whole...more
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
Murr v. Wisconsin (June 23, 2017, Docket No. 15-214) - Why It Matters: The Supreme Court missed an opportunity to bring some clarity to the law of regulatory takings and, instead, made the law more confusing and less...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
On June 23, the Supreme Court finally addressed directly the frequently posed question: When considering the claimed taking of a property interest by government regulation, what is the affected property to be considered? All...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
Real Property Update - US Supreme Court - Regulatory Taking: owner of parcel A, that took title to adjacent parcel B after regulation restricting use of parcels had been passed, lost grandfather rights for both parcels by...more
On June 23, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated ruling in Murr v. Wisconsin, a takings case that may have important consequences for property owners owning multiple contiguous parcels. The Court held that...more
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Bd., No. 16-399: Petitioner Anthony Perry was a federal employee at the U.S. Census Bureau and in 2011, received notice he would be terminated due to spotty attendance. Perry and the Bureau...more
The Supreme Court of the United States applied a multi-factor test to rule that a regulation prohibiting construction on an undersized lot contiguous to a second lot under common ownership was not a taking. In the broadest...more
On June 23, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, holding that, in determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, courts should...more
On June 23, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there was no compensable taking of Petitioners’ property in Murr v. Wisconsin. Petitioners who own two adjacent lots along a waterfront in Wisconsin were not deprived of all...more