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
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
Following the death of George Floyd during his arrest in Minneapolis, Minnesota, America experienced months of civil unrest throughout the country. It was during these protests that some began to assert that civil society in...more
We routinely get calls from owners facing impacts to their property or business as a result of construction of a public project or changes in adjacent public streets. For example, the city or county may close a road, create a...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
As any experienced California eminent domain lawyer knows, there is a unique statutory mechanism that allows parties to bring a legal issues motion to secure a court’s ruling on a litany of issues that impact compensation....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