“It Ain’t Over ‘Til It’s Over:” Nebraska Supreme Court Rules (or Maybe Not) on the Validity of the TransCanada XL Pipeline Route Approval Through Nebraska
Probably no appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court has been watched more closely by more people than the challenge to the statutory routing process for the proposed TransCanada XL Pipeline.
The Saga of the Keystone Pipelines in Nebraska: Unconstitutional Regulation, and Lessons on How to Acquire Property and How Not to Acquire Property
Members of Owner’s Counsel of America, who regularly represent property owners in condemnation situations, tend to be naturally very protective of private property rights. We enjoy events that shed light on this dark corner of the law, especially when they help to shape public opinion in favor of property rights.
Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner and Brief Amicus Curiae of Owners Counsel of America in Support of Petitioner, Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (June 17, 2010), Robert H. Thomas (Hawaii), Counsel of Record.
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether a 2008 Florida Supreme Court decision upholding the Florida Beach and Shore Preservation Act which reversed a century of Florida law was a “judicial taking.” The Court found that the Florida court’s decision neither violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee nor consituted a taking of private property.
Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Brief Amicus Curiae of Owners Counsel of America in Support of the Petitioner, River Center LLC v. Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, No. 11-922 (cert. petition filed Jan. 23, 2012), Robert H. Thomas (Hawaii), Counsel of Record.
This case involved one of the largest condemnations of private property in the history of New York City. At issue were important questions concerning the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
“Moving the Cat into the Hat: The Pursuit of Fairness in Condemnation, or, Whatever Happened to Creating a Partnership of Planning?” by Michael Rikon (New York)
In this 2011 article, Mr. Rikon criticizes Article 2 of New York’s Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL), the procedure used to approve and challenge condemnation.
“Kelo in the Country…HB198 and the taking of rural property” by Hertha Lund (Montana)
This article argues against Montana House Bill 198 that seeks to grant the power of eminent domain to a Canadian power company in order for that company to acquire private property throughout Montana for the purposes of constructing a private (for profit) “merchant” transmission line.
July 1st, 2009 — In Articles
“Fair Market Value in a Down Market” by Alan T. Ackerman (Michigan)
This excerpt from the American Bar Association’s 2009 annual review questions the ability to establish fair market value during a down real estate market. Mutual motivation and market timing are two key factors examined.
July 1st, 2008 — In Articles
“The Perils of Prior Appraisal” by Michael Rikon (New York)
In this 2008 article, Mr. Rikon supports New York’s two-step appraisal law for inverse condemnation but cautions against requesting draft appraisals since they are admissible at trial and may create problems by undermining the credibility of the appraiser.
“Compensation for Loss of Visibility to and View from the Owner’s Property” by James L. Thompson (Maryland)
The general law covering this issue (related to inverse condemnation) varies from state to state. The authors cite numerous case examples in this 2006 article, including their current litigation, and organize the disparities into three categories: legal principles, collateral factors and practice tips.
“Recent Developments in Public Use and Pretext in Eminent Domain” by Robert H. Thomas (Hawaii)
The courts response to the increasing number of landowners challenging government condemnation is examined in this 2005 article. The issue of pretext is illustrated by litigation in Hawaii involving a private property owner’s claim that the county had delegated its power of eminent domain to a developer.