Tag: amicus brief
Owners’ Counsel of America Files Brief in Inverse Condemnation Case before U.S. Supreme Court
Posted on Nov 23, 2016 in Articles
The Owners’ Counsel of America (OCA) has joined together with other property rights advocates to file an amici curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in an inverse condemnation case concerning the rails-to-trails conversion of an elevated rail line in New York to a public parkway.
Battle on the Beach: Owners’ Counsel of America Files Amicus Brief in Important Property Rights Case
Posted on Oct 5, 2016 in Articles
Recently, the Owners’ Counsel of America filed an amicus brief in a property rights case currently pending in the North Carolina Supreme Court. The case, Nies v. Town of Emerald Isle, No. COA15-169 (N.C. App. Nov. 17, 2015), concerns the ownership and right to use the “dry sand” beach. OCA joined with Hawaii Law Professor David Callies as amici on the brief.
Hawaii Supreme Court Accepts Certiorari in Eminent Domain Case; Owners’ Counsel and NFIB Filed Amici Brief
Posted on Aug 31, 2016 in News & Events
On August 22, the Supreme Court of Hawaii accepted the Application for Writ of Certiorari filed July 10, 2016 by the landowner in County of Kauai v. Hanalei River Holdings, Ltd., No. SCWC-14-0000828. The Owners’ Counsel of America (OCA) joined with the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) Small Business Legal Center to file an amici curiae brief in the case urging the Court to review and overturn the appellate court’s decision.
OCA Files Amicus Brief In Support of Property Owners in NC “Public Trust Doctrine” Case
Posted on Jun 29, 2016 in News & Events
Along our country’s shores, a historical legal principle known as the “public trust doctrine” allows members of the public to access the beach beyond either the mean high or low water mark, even where this section of the beach (as well as the land above the water mark) is private property. This is the law in most states; and, until recently, it was clear that the public trust doctrine did not – and was not intended to –provide local governments the authority to interfere with landowners’ rights in the “dry sand” areas of their private property.