Eminent Domain: First Principles, Kelo, and In Service of Infrastructure Buildout
Real Estate Developer Rights When Cities Demand Too Much
Newsflash: Rockweed Not a Fish
Yours, Mine and Ours (not yet!): An Update on the Patentability of Human Genes -
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
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
When it comes to whether unions have a right to enter an employer’s premises over the employer’s objections, California’s law is the polar opposite of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the law in most other states....more
On November 13, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order granting certiorari in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. The question presented in the successful cert petition is “whether the uncompensated appropriation of an...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
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
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
Last week, Jeremy Jacobs posted an interesting article about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275 (U.S. Jun. 22, 2015), and its potential application to Endangered Species Act...more
As an eminent domain attorney, when I think about a “takings” claim, I always think about a claim involving someone’s real property. Has the government trespassed onto private property, has it imposed regulations that deny...more
In Horne I, the Supreme Court held that a property owner, facing a governmental enforcement action, can assert as a defense that the action effects a “taking” of one’s property (here, a raisin crop) “without just...more
Horne v. Department of Agriculture, No. 14-275 (U.S. June 22, 2015) - Why It Matters: In a pro-property rights opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court applies Fifth Amendment “takings” analysis to a federal program that...more
The high court’s decision in Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District extends the landmark decisions in Nollan and Dolan, which set standards on when an agency can condition a land use permit on the relinquishment...more