In That Case: Department of State v. Muñoz
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 418: Listen and Learn -- Criminal Procedure: Miranda Warnings
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 19 - The Fifth Amendment & Its Role in Parallel Proceedings
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 323: Listen and Learn -- The Exclusionary Rule (Criminal Law and Procedure)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 157: Listen and Learn -- The Sixth Amendment
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 154: Listen and Learn -- The Exclusionary Rule (Criminal Law and Procedure)
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®
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 290: Listen and Learn -- Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Miranda Rights
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 128: Listen and Learn -- Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Miranda Rights
More Emerging Litigation Claims and Demands from COVID-19
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 79: Tackling an MEE Criminal Law/Procedure and Evidence Essay
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 70: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Criminal Law and Procedure
Podcast - Developments in FDA & DOJ Regulation and Enforcement of Manufacturer Communications
The Koontz Decision: Limits Conditions a Government can Impose on Developers
Supreme Court Hands Landowners a Major Victory - Nossaman's Brad Kuhn
How Does Immunity Work in a Federal Criminal Case?
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday morning in the case of Joseph Fischer, one of more than 300 people convicted of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding: the congressional certification on January 6, 2021, of...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
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