Monthly Archives: June 2010

Last week the New York Court of Appeals issued its decision in Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125 (June 24, 2010) (see our post here). In it’s decision, NY’s highest court reversed the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (First Department) decision issued December 3, 2009 which had struck down the attempted taking by eminent domain finding that the taking was unconstitutional as the project would not have a true public purpose but rather an entirely private benefit to Columbia University.

The Daily Reporter (Milwaukee, WI) posted an article June 22 by Sean Ryan detailing the VFW eminent domain case refused for review by the U. S. Supreme Court (see our previous post here). Mr. Ryan’s article ‘You can’t fight city hall’: VFW loses eminent domain battle outlines the history of the case – a near decade long battle waged by the VFW Post 2874 against the Milwaukee Redevelopment Authority over just compensation for the Post’s valuable long-term leasehold.

We have just learned that the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) has released its opinion in the matter of Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125 (June 24, 2010). This is the case in which the New York State Urban Development Corporation (also known as the Empire State Development Corporation or ESDC) sought to condemn by eminent domain private properties in the West Harlem neighborhood surrounding Columbia University and give those seized properties to that private institution for an expansion project it wishes to undertake.

Yesterday, blogger Karen Dybis posted her interview with eminent domain attorney Alan Ackerman on The Detroit Blog (a Time/CNN partner blog). [Disclosure: Alan Ackerman is the Michigan Member of Owners’ Counsel of America.]

This morning, we received the following press release and link to the video featured above from the Institute for Justice reminding us that today marks the fifth anniversary of the infamous Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London.

This morning the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an unanimous opinion in the inverse condemnation/regulatory takings/adverse possession case Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon, No. A-49-09 (June 22, 2010), for which the New Jersey Law Journal coined the phrase “a bizarre condemnation.”

Below are links to additional blog posts and commentary regarding last week’s Supreme Court decision in Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 08-1151.

There has been much chatter and discussion regarding the U.S. Supreme Court Opinion issued June 17, 2010 in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-1151. (See list of links below for much of this chatter.) As many have said, the opinion is “fragmented” with various groupings of Justices agreeing on different parts of the decision, nonetheless all 8 Justices agreed that there was no taking. (Justice Stevens recused himself, presumably he owns oceanfront (now “ocean view”) property in Florida.)

Following last week’s conference, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning issued an order denying certiorari review in City of Milwaukee Post No. 2874 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Milwaukee, No. 09-1204 (cert. petition filed Apr. 2, 2010) SCOTUS online docket here.

International news agencies have recently reported a story focusing on Yang Youde, a farmer whose property lies on the outskirts of Wuhan city, in central Hubei province, China and his efforts to defend his property from seizure by government-backed developers who want his land. Reuters reports: “His approach is more aggressive than most, but Yang’s problem is a common one.” And, some might argue common not only in Communist China.