Archive | Inverse Condemnation

ANOTHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING CLAIM DISMISSED

In our May 11, 2018 blog, we wrote about the Second Department’s affirmance of the dismissal of a claim by Yellow Cab Medallion owners that their property was taken when the City of New York permitted Uber and other for hire vehicles to provide on demand ground transportation. The Court held, inter alia: Moreover, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the TLC’s alleged decision to “allow black cars to pick up e-hails” did not, as a matter of law, constitute an unconstitutional taking of the petitioners’ property (see… read more

Posted in Inverse Condemnation
Read more > 0

ANOTHER FIFTH AMENDMENT CLAIM STRUCK DOWN

          The Second Department held that the City of New York did not take property from taxicab companies that own medallions.  The proceeding arises out of the rapid growth of for-hire vehicle services provided by companies such as Uber which allow passengers to use a smartphone application to electronically request on-demand ground transportation. The Court held, inter alia: Moreover, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the TLC’s alleged decision to “allow black cars to pick up e-hails” did not, as a matter of law, constitute an unconstitutional taking… read more

Posted in Fifth Amendment, Inverse Condemnation, Regulatory Taking
Read more > 0

STORM WATER RELEASES DURING HARVEY WERE ALLEGEDLY UNLAWFUL TAKINGS

Reuters announced that owners of homes flooded during Hurricane Harvey are claiming billions in damages because of Federal and State water releases from storm-swollen reservoirs.  Several lawsuits have been filed in Federal and State Court in Texas and claim properties were taken for public use without compensation.  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a Texas State agency have been named as the defendants responsible for the water releases.  Damages are estimated to be as high as $3 billion.  There may be more than 1,000 homes valued at between $750,000… read more

Posted in Harvey Storm Water Releases, Inverse Condemnation, Temporary Flooding
Read more > 0

The Supreme Court rejects a property owner’s regulatory taking claim

The Supreme Court of the United Sates rejected a property owner’s regulatory taking claim in Murr v Wisconsin, 582 U.S. ____ [2017]. The claim alleged that a Wisconsin law deprived the owner of all or practically all of the use of one of two adjacent lots because the lot could not be sold or developed separately under the Wisconsin law. The Court applied a multi-part test to identify the relevant parcel for the regulatory taking inquiry. It concluded that the two lots should be evaluated as a single parcel, and… read more

Posted in Inverse Condemnation, Recent cases
Read more > 0

MUIR V. WISCONSIN “PARCEL AS A WHOLE” DOCTRINE SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

The United States Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument of the Muir case for March 20, 2017.  The case involved a regulatory taking claim which was premised on the adoption of a zoning ordinance which required a minimum “net project area.”  This resulted in the inability to develop or sell the contiguous parcel.  There were two parcels which although owned by the same owner and contiguous were purchased separately at different times for different purposes.  By itself the other lot would be grandfathered under the zoning law, but not when… read more

Posted in Inverse Condemnation, Regulatory Taking
Read more > 0