Search Results (230)
Documents on eminent domain
Show: results per page
|Valuing Condemned Land Using the Development Approach: Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority v. Fuller|
Lawrence B. Abrams; Rhoads & Sinon LLP;
February 24, 2011In a recent case, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has affirmed the condemnee’s use of the “development approach” to value land taken under the power of eminent domain when the condemnee had filed a plan complying with local zoning regulations prior to the date of the taking....
|Property Owner’s Claim for Inverse Condemnation Did Not Accrue Until City’s Occupation of the Property Became Wrongful, Which Was Not Until the Eminent Domain Proceeding Was Dismissed|
William T. Chisum, Jeffrey L. Massey; Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard A Law Corporation;
February 16, 2011, previously published on February 10, 2011In Cobb v. City of Stockton, (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 3 Dist., January 26, 2011), a court of appeal considered whether a property owner’s claim for inverse condemnation was barred by the statute of limitations. The court of appeal held the property owner’s claim was not barred by...
|UPDATE: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Sitting En Banc Holds that City's Rent Control Ordinance Does Not Constitute a Regulatory Taking of Property From Mobile Home Park Owners|
Jon E. Goetz, Jeffrey L. Massey; Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard A Law Corporation;
January 20, 2011, previously published on January 18, 2011In Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, (--- F.3d, C.A.9 (Cal.), December 22, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc considered whether mobile home park owners stated a regulatory taking of property claim against a city that has a rent control ordinance...
|Steps To Justice|
Blucher Law Group LLC;
January 3, 2011What the property owner or business owner should consider in eminent domain.
|Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision Puts Private Road Act at Risk|
Megan Daly King; Saul Ewing LLP;
November 29, 2010, previously published on November 2010On September 30, 2010, in a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided In the Matter of: Opening a Private Road ex rel. O’Reilly, 5 A.3d 246 (Pa. 2010). The Supreme Court reviewed the Commonwealth Court’s determination that the Pennsylvania Private Road Act does not effect...
|Eminent-Domain Reform Bill Advances in New Jersey State Senate, But Does Not Take a Big Leap|
George J. Kroculick, Michael J. McCalley; Duane Morris LLP;
October 25, 2010, previously published on October 21, 2010On October 7, 2010, the New Jersey Senate's Community and Urban Affairs Committee approved S-1451, a bill intended to give property owners greater rights in condemnation cases and redevelopment projects (the "Bill"). Namely, the Bill, which is sponsored by Sen. Ronald Rice, D-Essex, is an...
|Displaced Property Owner May Not Recover Expenses In Eminent Domain Proceeding That Are Deemed Nonrecoverable By Relocation Assistance Act|
William T. Chisum, Mona Ebrahimi; Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard A Law Corporation;
September 2, 2010, previously published on August 24, 2010In Los Angeles Unified School District v. Casasola, (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 2 Dist., August 5, 2010), a court of appeal addressed whether property owners who were displaced when a school district condemned their property could “recover under the eminent domain law expenditures...
|Supreme Court Narrows Possible Securities Fraud Claims against Foreign Issuers|
Ambreen A. Delawalla; Alston & Bird LLP;
July 27, 2010, previously published on July 14, 2010The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its decision in a so-called “foreign cubed” securities case, Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., No. 08-1191, 2010 WL 2518523 (U.S. June 24, 2010). The Court held that a foreign investor’s complaint against a foreign issuer in...
|U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Takings Clause in Florida Case|
Roderick E. Walston; Best Best & Krieger LLP;
June 30, 2010, previously published on June 21, 2010The U. S. Supreme Court waded into a thorny constitutional thicket by considering whether the courts, like other branches of government, are subject to the limitations of the Takings Clause of the U. S. Constitution when they change the definition of property. Under the Takings Clause, the...
|You're Going to Do What With My Property? - City of Stockton v. Marina Towers, LLC (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 93|
Michael R. Kiesling, Antony D. Nash, Steven S. Wall; Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP;
May 18, 2010, previously published on May 7, 2010May a public entity condemn property first, then decide what to do with that property later? The answer, according to the recent decision of the California Court of Appeal in City of Stockton v. Marina Towers, is a resounding “no!”