Two of the more complicated issues eminent domain attorneys face are analyzing whether government conduct rises to the level of a taking, and whether the government engaged in precondemnation conduct that gives rise to damages apart from paying just compensation. Earlier this week, an unpublished California Court of Appeal decision, Dryden Oaks v. San Diego … Continue Reading
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
Over the past several months, the United States Supreme Court and the California Courts of Appeal have issued several significant regulatory takings opinions addressing the liability of government agencies for enacting regulations or otherwise conditioning proposed developments. To really dig into these opinions and their importance, Law Seminars International will be putting on a one-hour … Continue Reading
It’s not too often a property owner succeeds with an inverse condemnation/regulatory takings claim based on a general plan amendment or zone change. The owner must generally demonstrate that the regulation either on its face, or when specifically applied to the owner’s property, deprives the owner of the economically beneficial uses of the property. The … Continue Reading
Given the maze of procedural and substantive hurdles involved, property owners rarely succeed with regulatory takings claims. Even when owners do win, it is yet more uncommon for courts to award damages, instead allowing the public agency to repeal the regulation. But securing a victory on liability and a damages award for a temporary regulatory … Continue Reading
For those of you who have followed Nossaman’s blog since the very early days, you’ll recall our coverage of a significant regulatory takings case, Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The 2008 California decision received much press coverage in that it was one of the very few instances where property owners overcame the myriad substantive … Continue Reading
In Lost Tree Village Corporation v. United States, the Federal Circuit addressed this question head on, concluding, to the surprise of no one, that the answer will largely depend upon the unique facts in each case. The question arose because the Army Corps of Engineers denied Lost Tree Village Corporation (Lost Tree), a commercial and real estate developer, a … Continue Reading
As we previewed in our recent "year in review" piece, the U.S. Supreme Court has some takings issues before it this term. One case, Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District, took center stage yesterday. At issue in the case is whether the the "nexus" and "proportionality" tests that we have all come to … Continue Reading
Earlier this week, I spent a day in Los Angeles at a seminar involving regulatory takings issues. It featured a great panel of speakers on a variety of takings, eminent domain, and land use issues. (In fairness, you should view my characterization of the panel’s quality with some skepticism; I was Co-Chair of the seminar and … Continue Reading
