On-Demand Webinar | Eminent Domain in 2020: A Year in Review
It is one of the most common assumptions made by clients in litigation: “If I win, the other side will have to pay my attorney’s fees, right?” Unfortunately, that assumption is often wrong—especially in North Carolina. The...more
Can a public entity be held liable for inverse condemnation when it fails to prevent another party from causing damage to private property? This one is pretty simple: the answer is no....more
Investors and developers scour the Southern California real estate market searching for opportunities to buy dated houses that they can demolish and replace with large, modern homes to sell for much more. A few individuals...more
Update: We previously published the alert below regarding House Bill (“HB”) 698 in the 134th Ohio General Assembly, which proposed numerous changes to Ohio’s eminent domain statutes that would be favorable to property owners,...more
A hotel owner brought a lawsuit against a county transportation authority and a general contractor for nuisance and inverse condemnation alleging that the construction of an underground subway line disrupted the operation of...more
Despite undertaking due diligence, a buyer of real estate may miss pre-existing property damage or a public improvement that was installed without permission or right. Does the new buyer have a cause of action for a taking...more
Local government agencies sometimes enact short-term building moratoriums for certain areas to further assess changes in land use patterns or slow growth. Those moratoriums imposed across a large area usually do not...more
When public projects are being constructed, surrounding property owners typically experience construction impacts, such as noise, dust, fumes, vibration, and road detours. Typically, absent a physical taking of property,...more
Facts: The property owner alleged a per se taking and inverse condemnation in the expansion of a road that increased surface and stormwater runoff flowing under the property and ultimately a sinkhole in the parking lot. The...more
A damaged Property Owner no longer has to exhaust administrative remedies in State Court if they wish to pursue a takings claim under the Civil Rights Act. As a result, Property Owners injured by government regulatory takings...more
Sea level rise is a critical issue facing public agencies and property owners throughout the United States. In California alone, this phenomenon could impact thousands of residences and businesses, dozens of wastewater...more
In order for a property owner to successfully pursue a regulatory takings claim for inverse condemnation, the owner is typically required to pursue multiple different development options, and face multiple permit denials,...more
Typically, when a public agency acquires property by eminent domain, it names all potentially interested parties in the condemnation action. This includes the property owner, any easement holders, lien holders and usually...more
When a property owner commits to developing property in a certain manner, including providing a certain number of parking spaces, and the local government agency enforces the owner’s failure to comply, does the enforcement...more
We routinely get calls from owners facing impacts to their property or business as a result of construction of a public project or changes in adjacent public streets. For example, the city or county may close a road, create a...more
The County of San Diego could not be held liable for damage caused by leakage from a privately-owned storm drain pipe on private property merely because water from public property drained through it. Ruiz v. County of San...more
“No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”...more
On June 21, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) (Knick), that private parties seeking to challenge a local government under the “Takings Clause” can now file...more
CEP Magazine (January 2020) - US law holds that, when the government seizes or damages land and does not pay compensation as required under the Fifth Amendment, the landowner must sue in court for damages. It is known as...more
On November 27, 2019, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali issued a Memorandum Decision on Inverse Condemnation (“Memorandum Decision”) in PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric’s (together, “PG&E”) Chapter 11 Bankruptcy...more
In June, the United States Supreme Court dismantled what many considered to be an untenable “preclusion trap” in Fifth Amendment takings law when it decided Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania. The key issue in Knick was...more
In Justice Elena Kagan’s dissenting opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court takings case Knick v. Scott, she stated: “Today’s decision sends a flood of complex state-law issues to federal courts. It makes federal courts a principal...more
Did you know the right to eminent domain goes as far back as the Magna Carta? Eminent domain is hardly new news, and as such recent game changing cases regarding the subject are few and far between. The last major eminent...more
For many years, a property owner seeking compensation from a state or local government for an uncompensated property taking was relegated to filing an action for inverse condemnation in state court. In Ohio, for example, that...more
The Supreme Court recently issued its long-awaited ruling in Knick v. Township of Scott, concluding that a plaintiff alleging that local governments have violated the Takings Clause under the Fifth Amendment may seek relief...more