Some interesting items have crossed my desk on Friday and Saturday: From the Grand Theft: Property blog, Jim Mattson posts his thoughts about Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes , 67 Cal. App. 4th 263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), the case in which a California Court of Appeals held that a municipality'...

Thanks to James Lawlor of the Land Use Legal Report for letting us know that the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review Ocean Harbor Homeowners Ass'n v. California Coastal Comm'n , 163 Cal. App. 4th 215, 77 Cal. Rptr. 432 (2008). In that case, the California Court of Appeals held that the...

Here are the links to the cases that I spoke about in my session in today's seminar "Supreme Court, Regulatory Takings and Eminent Domain Update. Not all of the cases we discussed today are included below, so if you would like a link or more information about a case that we discussed but th...

In Zaid v. United States , No. 08-020C (Jan 22, 2009), the Court of Federal Claims held that an attorney who had a one-third contingent fee arrangement with his client did not have a claim for a taking when Congress placed a 10% fee limitation in two private bills. Attorney Zaid represented two FBI ...

For a while now, we've been meaning to post the latest order in the Maui affordable housing case from the U.S. District Court, Kamaole Pointe Development LP v. County of Maui, No. 07-00447 DAE (D. Haw.), but for one reason or another, haven't had the chance until now.  The case is a ch...

When must a landowner challenge a land use regulation she claims illegally impact her property?  Talk to a lawyer, and they're usually going to say that you should act sooner than later, and often the time limitations are very short. Under California law, for example, facial challenges to ...