Welcome to the Future!
3 craft brewers are suing Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission over a 2013 law that prohibits the brewers from distributing their product.
The craft brewers liken the prohibition from retaining distribution abilities to TABC exercising eminent domain. The analogy is that the law gives distributors property, that isn’t theirs and that they didn’t earn without compensating the the owner of the property, the craft brewers.
The Institute for Justice is representing the craft…
A Florida city wanted to protect seagrasses. So, it prohibited docks to promote seagrass growth. Property owners, with riparian rights, wanted to build docks to access the water. The conflict ended up in court.
Landowners went to state court seeking property right protections for their riparian rights. The city moved the suit to federal courts. The 11th Circuit held that riparian rights, state based property rights, are not protected by the US Constitution. Litigants await word fr…
Merrill Matthews writes that the proposition to ban fracking within the city limits of Denton has broader implications. The ban would fuel a public relations campaign for environmentalists. The ban would also give rise to inverse condemnation claims for property owners to argue that the ban denied them full use of their property to earn royalties. It’s a sticky situation.
Posted incampaigns, inverse condemnation, pipelines/common carriers, private property rights
Briefing is underway for a controversial groundwater case before the Texas Supreme Court. A pecan farmer was denied permits to water his pecan trees by the Edwards Aquifer. The pecan farmer argues the denial of the permit was a taking of his property. For all you land use lawyers, yes, the land owner is claiming an inverse condemnation. [Bragg v. Edwards Aquifer Authority] Refreshing Recollection: There’s another in… On Thursday the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments on an inverse condemnation case. A condo complex was deemed inhabitable by the City. The residents moved out of the complex. An appellate court said the residents didn’t get their constitutional due process rights. The Texas Supreme Court’s opinion will be a smorgasbord of constitutional rights- private property rights, takings, due process, and let’s throw in equal protection just for giggles.
Posted inblight, inverse condemnation, legislation trend
Outdoor advertising is at the heart of an eminent domain case now before the TX Supreme Court. Land with a billboard was condemned by the State. The billboard owner sought just compensation for the condemnation & won- twice. The billboard owner won at district court, won at appeal, and now we’re awaiting arguments before the Texas Supremes. Owners Counsel of America, a group of attorneys supporting private property rights, joined with NFIB to file an amicus brief supporting the billbo…TX Supremes Say Hello to Inverse Condemnation
Inverse Condemnations: Is covert eminent domain ready for primetime?
The Billboard v. the Land Owner