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 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
According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the answer is a definitive yes....more
As we have previously discussed, downzoning (changing the zoning designation for property from a more intensive use to a more restrictive use) can possibly rise to the level of a regulatory taking, depending on each...more
The Township of Canton, Michigan, like many local governments, requires property owners who remove trees of a certain size to either replace those trees or pay into a fund for the planting of new trees. The Sixth Circuit...more
The California Coastal Act is a regulatory regime with many layers and complexities. Generally, however, the Act requires development within a designated coastal zone to obtain a coastal development permit. This permit may be...more
Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! In today's episode from our "Listen and Learn" series, we tackle the topic of regulatory takings, which is often tested in crossover essay questions that cover both Property and...more
The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (No. 20-107), a case that has generated considerable amicus participation and press coverage. In that case, union organizers, relying on a...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
In this webinar, Spilman Members Niall Paul and Joseph Schaeffer discuss the developing risks and civil liabilities associated with COVID-19 and operating businesses including wrongful death or personal injury claims relating...more
In the face of governmental orders shutting down businesses, redirecting business efforts and assets, and even seizing business property to redistribute to others, we are seeing more and more questions about the limits of...more
As governmental agencies issue mandates regarding COVID-19, many commercial tenants have been forced to shut down. To obtain relief, such as a rent abatement, a tenant could potentially argue that such governmental action...more
New York state has enacted the Housing Stability and Tenant Projection Act of 2019, providing for sweeping changes to rent and landlord/tenant laws with the stated purpose of protecting tenants while imposing new obligations...more
The Court of Federal Claims addressed in a May 29th opinion a Fifth Amendment Takings Claim associated with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s withdrawal of a Clean Water Act 404 permit that had been issued...more
When state and local governments impose unreasonable conditions or exactions on private property, owners pursuing a regulatory takings claim often face a maze of procedural obstacles just to have their case heard. ...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 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
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