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. I once described these procedural obstacles as resembling Alice's trip through Wonderland, with the parties falling in and out of state and then federal court (instead of a rabbit hole) based on procedural and substantive rules that often seem as logical as the Mad Hatter's recitals at the Tea Party. The reason for this maze stems from (i) a U.S. Supreme Court decision ...
In a published decision, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District rejected the California Coastal Commission's ("Commission") collateral estoppel argument and found that there is no rational nexus or rough proportionality between the work proposed by an applicant on a private residence a mile from the coast and a lateral public access easement imposed by the Commission as a condition of approval. Accordingly, the easement condition amounted to an unconstitutional taking. (Bowman v. Cal. Coastal Com. (Oct. 23, 2014).)
In 2002, the property owner of ...
If you ask ten attorneys what keeps them up at night, at least six of them will recount nightmares about missing a filing deadline. I know what you're thinking. How hard can it be? You just look in the Code, find the applicable limitations period, and then you're off. However, as with all things law related, it very rarely is that simple. In a recent decision issued by the Second Appellate District, the court explained why filing deadlines are not the only thing practitioners should have nightmares about. In Excelaron, LLC v. County of San Luis Obispo
As reported by our colleague Robert Thomas on inversecondemnation.com, the California Supreme Court granted the California Building Industry Association's (CBIA) petition for review in California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose. The case will be the first test in California post-Koontz on whether the nexus/proportionality requirements apply to general regulations such as affordable housing exactions.
The CBIA filed the petition after the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District reversed and remanded the Superior Court's decision ...
On February 27, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed (pdf) the dismissal of a Fifth Amendment takings claim based on the finding that the claim was "not ripe." The claim is unusual because it arose in the context of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Casitas Municipal Water District (Casitas) has a contract with the federal Bureau of Reclamation and a license with the State of California authorizing it to divert water for the Ventura River Project (Project). The contract with the Bureau of Reclamation states that Casitas ...
California Eminent Domain Report is a one-stop resource for everything new and noteworthy in eminent domain in California. We cover all aspects of eminent domain in California, including condemnation, inverse condemnation, and regulatory takings. We also keep track of current cases, project announcements, budget issues, legislative reform efforts, and report on all major California eminent domain conferences and seminars.
Stay ConnectedRSS Feed
- CLIMATE CHANGE
- Court Decisions
- GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
- Inverse Condemnation & Regulatory Takings
- New Legislation
- Public Agency Law
- Regulatory Reform and Proposed Rules
- Right to Take