The Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday, March 22, 2021 in a case (Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid) that will decide whether allowing union organizers to enter an employee’s private property constitutes a taking.
As of the date of this article, we are in week 18 of the shelter-in-place (SIP) order first issued by the State of California Public Health Officer on March 18. In the early days of the pandemic, land use development immediately saw construction halted, planning departments shut down, and permit processing paused. We saw wide disparities among jurisdictions throughout California as to the strictness of SIP orders, restrictions on active construction projects, and the availability of online permit processing tools. Below is a summary of some of the specific challenges attributable to the SIP orders in the areas of construction, due diligence, and land use permitting, as well as updates on how things have evolved over the past four months.
Nearly everyone would likely agree that a truly frivolous lawsuit or court motion is a bad thing – except the person filing it. In other words, for most people frivolous tactics are a nightmare, while for a few they are a business model.
To the surprise of most in the courtroom that day, Justice Clarence Thomas asked his first question from the bench in more than 10 years.
It is an understatement to say that pursuing a claim against the government for a Fifth Amendment regulatory taking is difficult.
If a landowner allows someone to use his or her property, that neighborly accommodation may ripen into a permanent easement-type property interest across the property.