Navigation

Archive | Per Se Taking

February 10, 2022

The Inconsistent Rulings of The Second Department: You Can Drive on the Beach – No You Can’t!

The Second Department handed down a decision dealing with driving on the beach in Southampton, Thomas v Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of Southampton, ____ AD3d ____ (February 9, 2022). The Southampton Village Code prohibited the driving on ocean beaches between 9:00 am and 6:00 pm during summer months.  However, the Village Code provides an exception to this general prohibition for a portion of the beach that includes the Thomas’s property, among others.  Plaintiffs alleged several causes of action including a per se unconstitutional taking. One fact stated by… read more

By
Posted in Access to Beach, Per Se Taking, Title to Beach
Read more > 0

July 2, 2021

SCOTUS Hands Down Another Important Property Rights Case: Pakdel v City and County of San Francisco

On June 28, 2021, the Supreme Court rendered a unanimous per curiam decision, Pakdel v City and County of San Francisco, 594 U.S. ____ (2021). The lawsuit involved a regulatory taking claim.  The City had required that as a condition of converting a tenancy-in-common to a condominium, that the owner must first offer any tenant a lifetime lease.  The Ninth Circuit held that the Plaintiffs, even though they requested two exemptions, did not present a final decision and, hence, their claim was not ripe under Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n… read more

By
Posted in Per Se Taking, Regulatory Taking
Read more > 0

July 1, 2021

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

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

October 15, 2018

HOW DO WE GET TO THE BEACH? PART II. MARTINS BEACH v SURFRIDER FOUNDATION

I first wrote about this subject in our blog dated May 21, 2018.  The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 1, 2018 to Martins Beach 1, LLC v Surfrider Foundation, _____ U.S. _____, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 5704.  The Court refused to hear an appeal by an owner to overturn a ruling that a beach access path must stay open. The access to the beach was located near Half Moon Bay, California.  The property never had public access.  The beach could only be accessed by driving down a private… read more

By
Posted in Beach Access, Per Se Taking, Public Trust Doctrine
Read more > 0