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®
More Emerging Litigation Claims and Demands from COVID-19
Real Estate Developer Rights When Cities Demand Too Much
The Koontz Decision: Limits Conditions a Government can Impose on Developers
Supreme Court Hands Landowners a Major Victory - Nossaman's Brad Kuhn
We’ve reported in the past that public agencies are more frequently demanding certain off-site public improvements to accommodate proposed private developments as a condition of entitlement approval. These can range from...more
On August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a ruling in Wolfe v. Reading Blue Mountain & Northern RR Co. The Court overturned the Commonwealth Court’s determination that a condemnation of private land by a...more
On Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court issued its opinions in Fair v. Continental Resources, No. S-21-074, and Nieveen v. TAX 106, No. S-21-364, following remand from the United States Supreme Court in the wake of Tyler v....more
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 litigation underlying Satcher v. Columbia County, 2024 WL 3802370 (Ga. Aug. 13, 2024), property owners sued the County related to damage caused by their privately-owned 48-inch pipe that had been used as part of the...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
In a recent case, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion in Schafer v. Kent County, No. 164975, addressing the critical issue of surplus equity stemming from a tax foreclosure within the context of the state...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
The U.S. Supreme Court in April 2024 issued a unanimous decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (144 S. Ct. 893), concluding that the "Takings Clause" in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to...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
On April 12, 2024, Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, 601 U.S. 267, 144 S. Ct. 893 (2024). Sheetz concerned El Dorado County's imposition of...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 April, the Supreme Court held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California that the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution applies to legislative land-use conditions, such as impact fees. This will result in...more
As threatened, TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Ltd., the owner of the TikTok app, filed suit against the United States on May 7, 2024, alleging that the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act...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
As part of the national security supplemental package, President Biden has signed into law two provisions targeting data use practices by websites, desktop applications, mobile apps, and augmented or immersive technology...more
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision that may have major impacts on developers in California, although the degree of impact will depend on how lower courts interpret that decision. In Sheetz...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
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-anticipated ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. The case concerned the legality of a local jurisdiction’s imposition of a traffic impact...more
In a dispute over a traffic impact fee imposed on a residential building permit by El Dorado County, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the long-standing position of California and other state courts that the Takings...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
Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and… dodge. An interesting case from the United States Supreme Court yesterday. Interesting because of what it says, and interesting because of what it very explicitly declined to say....more