Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 464 Mass. 400, February 8, 2013: Upland boundary of beach parcel or easement does not move with landward erosion of shoreline.
The Nortons (plaintiffs and appellants) claimed that their fractional interest in a beach on Martha’s Vineyard conveyed rights in a moveable beach parcel that shifts upland with the northerly migration of the [...]
MA Supreme Judicial Court, SJC-10559, August 2, 2010: Holds that the public’s interest in tidelands (public trust doctrine) may not be extinguished either by registration of title under the state’s Torrens system or by acts of the Attorney General absent an express delegation of power by the legislature, which has not occurred. Arno has a certificate [...]
The Conservation Law Foundation reports, “RI Supreme Court Decision Overturns Ruling that Would Have Allowed Champlin’s Marina Expansion”. CLF says, “the Superior Court issued a 91-page decision in which it ruled that there had, indeed, been improper procedures in the CRMC [Coastal Resources Management Council]. At that point, the Superior Court should have sent the case [...]
No. 01-08-00179-CV, Court Of Appeals Of Texas, First District, Houston, opinion issued February 4, 2010
In this case applying Texas’ Open Beaches Act (Tex. Nat. Res. Code Ann. §§ 61.001-.254) (“the Act”) the owners of several beachfront houses argued they should not be denied permits to repair their houses or forced to remove their houses after storms moved the beach vegetation line to the landward side of their structures. The issues included whether by common law a public easement existed on the beach, was it a rolling easement, did the Act required removal of the houses, and were the owners entitled to compensation for a taking. The Houston Court of Appeals concluded: Continue reading Brannan et al. v. State Of Texas et al.