Welcome to the Future!
What is this post-Harvey lawsuit about? The Harris County Flood Control District’s and City of Houston’s handling of “controlled release” of water from the county’s Addicks and Barker reservoirs on August 28, 2017
Who are the plaintiffs/class of plaintiffs? Residential property owners and commercial property owners
What’s the taking of land that is involved? The flooding led to a taking of properties by flooding.
What damages does the suit seek?
A federal judge in Indiana ruled that asset forefeiture of vehicles without criminal charges violates the constitution because asset forefeiture laws:
Emails, notes, and text messages document collusion between a city and a developer according to attorneys for home owners.
The emails, notes, and text messages reveal that city inspectors were sent in to enforce city code, and in lieu of issuing fines, home owners were given the choice of selling their land to a developer.
The emails, notes and text messages go on to reveal that boarded up homes will drive down prices. The city can use eminent domain to acquire the homes and then the…
A group of nuns in Pennsylvania own land that the Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline would like to occupy.
The nuns have taken the unusual step of suing the federal government claiming that the interstate natural gas pipeline violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Its a show down between the 5th Amendment (private property rights home) and the 1st amendment (protection of freedom of religious exercise).
A federal court in Houston found Houston’s homeless ordinance against public camping unconstitutional.
The Court opinion includes: “”Enforcement of the city’s ban against the plaintiffs may, therefore, cause them irreparable harm by violating their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment due to their status of ‘homelessness,'”
Texas Lawyer | Federal Judge Halts Houston’s Homeless Ordinance Banning Public Camping
No, nej, nyet! An appellate court in California decided 2 issues against a billionaire landwoner and neither of which is a taking:
Missouri’s Western District Court of Appeals held that all counties along the Grain Belt Express, wind transmission line, must approve the project.
Appeal of this ruling has been declined by the state supreme court.
Missouri’s Public Service Commission relied on this ruling to deny approval until all counties sign off on the plan & it is said to impact other transmission lines and Pipelines.
St. Louis Post Dispatch | Despite giving vocal support, state regulators again deny Grain Belt…
Michigan Supreme Court found that a man backing out of his garage, onto his driveway & pulling back into his garage could be arrested for DWI.
Private Property Rights activists and dissenting justices call the ruling a disgrace to private property rights.
Detroit Free Press | Finley: Man’s driveway is not his castle, court rules
Kansas Supreme Court ruled in late July 2017 that a violation of a restrictive covenant by an entity with the power of eminent domain is a taking requiring compensation requiring just compensation.
Thats a lot of legal words, what does it mean? In this Kansas case it means that Kansas DOT acquired land that was restricted to single family homes via restricted covenant. When KSDOT builds a bridge or roadway on that land it creates a compensable damage to the subdivision that created the…
The Massachusettes Land Court has held that short term rental ordinance violates zoning rules that require single family residences.
Lytle v. Swiec, 2017 WL 2257702 (Mass. Land Ct. 2017)