Archive | Inverse Condemnation

Food Truck Regulations Bring Property-Rights Claim

Jacksonville, North Carolina adopted several food truck regulations that brought many legal challenges.  One of those regulations was to ban food trucks on any property that sits within 250 feet of property with a brick-and-mortar restaurant or residential housing.  There is another regulation which bans food trucks from operating within 250 feet of each other. Within Jacksonville’s city limits open to food trucks, potential operators face other barriers. Another challenged regulation involves advertising.  Food trucks are limited to one sign no taller or wider than five feet.  The sign can… read more

Posted in Food Truck, Inverse Condemnation, Property Rights, Regulatory Taking
Read more > 0

Las Vegas Crap Shot Turns into An Inverse Taking

Las Vegas was slammed for its action which prevented a developer from pursuing housing plans on a defunct golf course.  The Clark County District Court held that the City’s actions were tantamount to the City taking the property. Kermitt Waters, Esq., owner’s counsel of America attorney for the State of Nevada represented the plaintiff-developer.  The estimated damages could be as much as $1 billion. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal (September 30, 2021), efforts to develop the golf course began after EHB purchased the land in 2015.  Plans were opposed… read more

Posted in Categorical Taking, Inverse Condemnation
Read more > 0

Cedar Point Nursery – Big Win for Property Rights

The Supreme Court decision in Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid, 549 U.S. ___ (2021), decided on June 23, 2021, was hailed as a “big win for property rights.”  The 6 to 3 decision significantly bolsters protection of private property rights. The case involved the challenge by two farmers of a California regulation that required farmers to allow union organizers onto their property three hours a day for 120 days each year.  The farmers argued that the regulation was equivalent to a time-limited government easement and this constituted a “per se”… read more

Posted in Inverse Condemnation, Per Se Taking
Read more > 0


          The First Department handed down an interesting decision distinguishing an eminent domain claim from a tort claim.  In 82 Willis, LLC v The City of New York, ____ AD3d ____ [1st Dept 2019], 2019 NY Slip Op 08162, the Claimant filed a claim pursuant to EDPL Sec. 503 in the condemnation proceeding asserting a taking for an easement over its lot.  When it submitted its appraisal, it sought damages for flooding after rainfall.  The City moved to strike the appraisal on the basis that the flooding damages do not… read more

Posted in Flooding, Inverse Condemnation, Tort Claim for Flooding, Uncategorized
Read more > 0


We recently read a decision from the Court of Claims where the following statement is found “… all considered with the understanding that the burden of proof is establishing an entitlement to substantial compensation rests with claimant (see Andrews v State of New York, 137 AD2d 952, 953 (3d Dept).” Cardinal Development Properties, Ltd. v The State of New York, Claim No. 120333, Decision Filed December 18, 2018, J. Hudson. Why would a Court of Claims Judge believe that this is true in a de jure appropriation? In other words,… read more

Posted in Burden of Proof, Condemnation, Inverse Condemnation
Read more > 0