Archives: Inverse Condemnation & Regulatory Takings

Subscribe to Inverse Condemnation & Regulatory Takings RSS Feed

New Opinion Clarifies Takings Law Regarding Affordable Housing Programs

Last year, my partner Ben Rubin reported on the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, which analyzed an inclusionary housing ordinance and held that such ordinances do not qualify as “exactions” and, consequently, are reviewed under a deferential standard that looked at whether the ordinance was “reasonably related” to the city’s … Continue Reading

Two Decisions out of San Diego Remind Us to Follow the Rules

We don’t often see multiple takings-related cases in one week, but last week we saw three.  The California Supreme Court’s decision in Property Reserve was obviously the most important, but the Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal in San Diego also issued two decisions in the same week.  Although both of these opinions are unpublished … Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court Steers Clear of Two Eminent Domain Cases

In the last month, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear appeals on two eminent domain-related cases.  The first case, California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, is one we discussed last year.  If you recall,  the California Supreme Court held that San Jose’s inclusionary housing ordinance that required all new residential development projects of … Continue Reading

Update on Two Recent California Eminent Domain Cases

I wanted to provide a quick update on two recent cases from the California Court of Appeal. The first, Golden State Water Company v. Casitas Municipal Water District (April 14, 2015), involves what appears to be an issue of first impression in California:  can Mello-Roos financing be used to fund an eminent domain action to acquire a … Continue Reading

Can Comments By a Federal Employee Result in a Taking Requiring Compensation Under the Fifth Amendment?

It depends.  A recent decision out of the Federal Circuit tackled this very issue, and the court’s decision strongly suggests that a taking could arise under the right circumstances.  (Filler v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2015) Case No. 2014-5117.)  As you probably already guessed by my use of the phrase “strongly suggests,” both the lower court and … Continue Reading

Water District Not Liable In Inverse Condemnation When Water Pipe Breaks and Damages Property

California’s infrastructure is aging. There have been numerous reports of water line breaks and gas line leaks, and public agencies have been moving quickly to upgrade their utilities to minimize these risks and satisfy increasing demands. When incidents do occur, when do agencies face potential liability in inverse condemnation? A recent California Court of Appeal … Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Take a Second Look at Takings Case

The burning question, is why?  While this is not the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has ever granted a petition for review in the same case, it is certainly not common.  And, it is downright uncommon for the Supreme Court to grant a second petition for review when the central issue in the case is a takings issue.  So what is … Continue Reading

Defining the “Larger Parcel” in Eminent Domain & Inverse Condemnation Actions

When a public agency acquires a portion of property, under California law the property owner is entitled to “severance damages” — or damages to the remainder portion of the property that was not acquired.  Usually, determining what constitutes the “remainder property” is relatively straight-forward.  But not always.  And, the determination could have a significant impact … Continue Reading
LexBlog