Archives

States and Local Governments Win Takings Case

Posted in Case Notes Commentary IMLA Briefs on June 27, 2017 By Lann McIntyre

Good news for local governments with “merger” ordinances: you can keep them on the books.

　It has been a number of years since states and local governments have won a property rights case. But in Murr v. Wisconsin the Supreme Court concluded 5-3 that no taking occurred where state law and local ordinances “merged” nonconforming, adjacent lots under common ownership, meaning the property owners could not sell one of the lots by itself. The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC), filed an amicus brief, which the Court cited two times, arguing that these very common provisions are constitutional.　

　The Murrs owned contiguous lots E and F, which together are .98 acres. Lot F contained a cabin and lot E was undeveloped. State law and a St. Croix County merger ordinance prohibit the individual development or sale of adjacent lots under common ownership that are less than one acre total. A grandfather clause allows for the sale and development of separately owned substandard lots purchased before the statute and ordinance went into effect.

The Murrs sought and were denied a variance to sell Lot E to finance moving the cabin on Lot F. They claimed the ordinance resulted in an unconstitutional uncompensated taking. Continue reading →

Is Merger Doomed: SCOTUS to Decide

Posted in Commentary IMLA Briefs on June 22, 2016 By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

Whoever thought up merger probably long ago gave up worrying if it was unconstitutional, if they even ever thought about it. But now that person (and numerous cities, counties, and states) have reason to worry.

In Murr v. Wisconsin the Supreme Court will decide whether merger provisions in state law and local ordinances, where nonconforming, adjacent lots under common ownership are combined for zoning purposes, may result in the unconstitutional taking of property. The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) filed an amicus brief arguing that these very common provisions are constitutional.

Continue reading →

Raisin Takings Case: What’s in it for Local Governments?

Posted in Case Notes Commentary IMLA Briefs on June 29, 2015 By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

Same-sex marriage, Affordable Care Act, raisins. What do these three have in common? The Supreme Court has recently issued a ruling regarding each of them.

In Horne v. Department of Agriculture the Supreme Court held 8-1 that the federal government violated the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause by physically setting aside a percentage of a grower’s raisin crop each year without pay. At least six other agriculture set aside programs are in trouble as a result of this case. But what about its impact on state and local government?

Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on August 11, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

Fourth Circuit

Cherry v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, No. 13-1007 (Aug. 6, 2014): In case brought by active and retired Baltimore police officers and fire fighters who participate in City’s pension plan, reversing district court’s decision that the City had violated the Contract Clause and affirming that the City had not violated the Takings Clause by changing how it calcualtes pension benefits.

Fifth Circuit

Thompson v. Mercer, No. 13-10773 (Aug. 7, 2014): In 1983 action against officer who shot and killed individual who had stolen vehicle and led police on a two-hour, high-speed chase, affirming grant of qualified immunity to officer because use of deadly force was not a constitutional violation.
Sullo & Bobbitt v. Milner, No. 13-10869 (Aug. 6, 2014): In unpublished decision, affirming dismissal of case brought by attorneys claiming First-Amendment right to access misdemeanor court records within one day of their filing.

Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on May 19, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

Second Circuit

Sherman v. Town of Chester, No. 13-1503 (May 16, 2014) (ruling that takings claim against the Town was ripe because seeking a final decision from the Town would be futile and because Town had removed case to federal court).
Morales v. City of New York, No. 13-2126 (May 16, 2014) (affirming dismissal of complaint against City alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, deprivation of right to fair trial, and deprivation of constitutional rights on account of race and color).
Disabled in Action v. Bd. of Elections in the City of New York, No. 12-4412 (May 14, 2014) (affirming that City Board of Elections violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA by failing to provide people with mobility or vision disabilities with meaningful access to voting program).

Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on February 24, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

Third Circuit

M.R. v. Ridley School District, No. 12-4137 (Feb. 20, 2014) (finding under Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act that for “stay put” period: (1) school district must reimburse parents for private-school costs even if parents do not file a claim for payment until after a court has ruled for the school; and (2) the parents’ right to interim funding extends through the time of judicial appeal.).

Fourth Circuit

Stevenson v. City of Seat Pleasant, No. 12-2047 (Feb. 21, 2014) (finding, inter alia, Continue reading →

Supreme Court Decisions a Local-Government Attorney Might Read Again – Koontz

Posted in Case Notes on August 19, 2013 By Kira Klatchko

If you condition a land-use permit on mitigation or other responsibilities, you may have to defend the condition under Koontz.

With the Supreme Court recently concluding its 2012 term, now is a good time to look back.

You have likely heard plenty about the Court’s high-profile holdings, including that:

the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional;
human genes cannot be patented;
a DNA cheek swab after certain arrests is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; and
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.

But it’s often the decisions that slip by quietly that impact you most. We’ll be publishing a series of posts about decisions that didn’t get a lot of press, but that are worth revisiting.

Continue reading →