Court of Appeals of Kentucky, No. 2015-CA-000499-MR, June 17, 2016: Ag conservation easement does not create public use protected from taking.
The issues in this case are (1) whether a taking of an easement on private land for a sewer line by the Water District is prohibited because of an agricultural conservation easement which the landowner previously [...]
US District Court, S.D. California, No. 12cv3055-LAB (MDD), September 8, 2015: Non-economic value of conservation easement excluded in valuation of taking.
This decision is about excluding evidence in a trial to determine how much the United States must compensate the County of San Diego for taking a small parcel of land subject to a conservation easement. The [...]
U.S. Supreme Court,No. 11-1447, June 25, 2013: Denial of land use permit for refusal of mitigation may be taking.
The following excerpts marked “Headnotes” are from the syllabus or headnotes prepared by the SCOTUS Reporter of Decisions, which are not part of the opinion of the Court. The excerpts marked “Majority Opinion” are from the Court’s opinion [...]
US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, No. 11-50333, May 31, 2012: Time gap between historic building demolition order and demolition raises question of fact requiring trial, not summary judgment, on 4th amendment claim of unreasonable seizures and 14th Amendment procedural due process claim.
In 2008 the City of San Antonio demolished a building of some historic value. [...]
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District No. 2-09-0007 September 16, 2010: In this transmission line case, the Court held that the owners of a “centennial farm” on the proposed line’s location could not appeal the state’s refusal to take note of the historic landmark designation of their house because petitioners, in their application to the state [...]
Court Of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, 2 CA-CV 2009-0186, Aug. 31, 2010: Attorney fees may not be awarded to a private landowner who prevails in a regulatory taking case pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-972(B). The court analyzed the statute and concluded that attorney fees may be awarded only in a physical taking matter and reviewed [...]
Superior Court of California, No. Civ 482448, June 18, 2010: Trial court finds an unconstitutional taking in Commission’s requirement that plaintiff grant a perpetual agricultural easement for “active agricultural use” of 140 acres as a condition for a permit to build a house. The requirement failed the “essential nexus” test of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, [...]
United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, C.A. No. 05-191 Erie, February 25, 2010.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the US against plaintiffs who own land that abuts or is traversed by a recreational trail in Elk and Cameron Counties, PA, who claim that by virtue of the operation of the National Trails System Act, 16 [...]
Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 285691
March 18, 2010
The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a trial court decision that a down-zoning of 9,000 acres “to preserve the unique camp-like characteristics of the Township,” including the Boy Scouts’ 4,748 acres property, did not constitute a taking. The court upheld the trial court’s ruling on summary disposition on [...]
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.