Jump to Navigation | Jump to Content
American Bar Association

Case Notes


United States

Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that Florida's Beach and Shore Preservation Act is not an unconstitutional taking.


Town of Gurley v. M & N Materials, Inc.

The Alabama Supreme Court held that the Alabama Constitution does not protect property owners from regulatory takings by government agencies.

Housing Authority of the Birmingham District v. Logan Properties, Inc.

The Birmingham Housing Authority was not liable on an inverse-condemnation claim when it never physically intruded on the property even though it did cause damage to property.

Bevelle v. Jefferson County, Alabama

Bankruptcy Law


Guggenheim v. City of Goleta

The court of appeals reasoned that "whatever unfairness to the mobile home park owner might have been imposed by rent control, it was imposed long ago, on someone earlier in the Guggenheims' chain of title."

The League of Residential Neighborhood Advocates v. City of Los Angeles

RLIUPA/Zoning and Conditional Use Permits

Casitas Municipal Water Dist. v. U.S.

Water Rights/Regulatory Taking

Paiute-Shoshone Indians v. City of Los Angeles

Native American Land Rights/Ejectment

MHC Financing Ltd Partnership v. City of San Rafael

Inverse Condemantion/Regulatory Taking

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States

Hazardous Waste Storage

Independence Park Apartments v. United States

Calculation of Damages, Regulatory/Legislative Taking


United States v. Donovan

Inverse Condemnation/Regulatory Taking


Rita Friedman, et al. v. South Florida Water Management District, et al.

The trial court found that the plaintiffs' inverse-condemnation claims were unripe and that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.

DeMarco Durzo Dev. Co. v. United States



Gwinnett County v. Ascot Inv. Co.

A Georgia county appealed a jury verdict, alleging that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of pre-taking damages.


Leone v. County of Maui

The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff alleging a regulatory taking is not required to seek an amendment to a community plan (CP) to ripen the claim.

Matsuda v. City and County of Honolulu

Eminent Domain, Contracts Clause, and Substantive Due Process

City & County of Honolulu v. Sherman

Eminent Domain, Land Reform, and RLUIPA


Crown Point Development, Inc. v. City of Sun Valley

Takings/Due Process


Limestone Development Corp. v. Village of Lemont

Inverse Condemnation/RICO


CCA Associates v. United States

Inverse Condemnation/Statutory Taking


Barclay v. United States

National Trail Systems Act (16 U.S.C. § 1247(d))


Northwest Louisiana Fish and Game Preserve Commission v. United States

Water and Access Rights


Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City v. George Valsamaki, et al.

Eminent Domain


UPDATED: Banks v. United States

Shoreline Erosion/Accrual of a Gradual Taking


Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corp. v. Rounds

Railroad Right-of-way


Sycamore Bank v. United States

Effect of Eminent Domain on Foreclosure Sale


St. Charles County v. Laclede Gas Co.

The Missouri Supreme Court reaffirmed a long-standing principle that an easement, like other forms of private property, can be taken only upon payment of just compensation.

Clay County Realty Co. v. City of Gladstone

Pre-Condemnation Damages

Reagan v. County of St. Louis

Inverse Condemnation/Rezoning

State of Missouri v. Muslet

Apportionment of Condemnation Award/Easement Owner

Chouteau Development Co., LLC v. Sinclair Marketing, Inc.

Underground Storage Tanks

Zoltek Corp. v. United States

Patent Rights


McFarland v. Kempthorne

Private Right to Use Federal Land/Easement/Special Use Permit


Walter C. Diers Partnership v. State Department of Roads

Nebraska Court Approves Deviation from Valuing the Property as a Single Unit

City of Lincoln v. Lincoln Lumber Co.

Railroad Right-of-way

Omaha Public Power Dist. v. United States

Hazardous Waste Storage


Colvin Cattle Company, Inc. v. United States

Grazing Rights/Regulatory Taking Claim

New York

Cine SK8, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta

Substantive Due Process, Equal Protection in Zoning Case

Goldstein v. Pataki

Eminent Domain in Aid of Private Development/Abstention Doctrine

Faith Temple Church v. Town of Brighton

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLIUPA”)

North Carolina

MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines

Rezoning/Abstention Doctrine


State ex rel. Gilbert v. City of Cincinnati

The property owner filed suit for a writ of mandamus to compel the city to commence an eminent-domain proceeding after the 79th sewage overflow in 10 years.

Columbia Casualty Company v. City of St. Clairsville, Ohio

Inverse Condemnation/Regulatory Taking/Insurance Coverage of Municipality


Parker v. City of Albany

Condemnees were held liable for the city's cost of acquiring their land via eminent domain.


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. 20.87 Acres of Land, More or Less; ANR Pipeline Co. v. 60 Acres of Land

Gas and Subsurface Rights


Nicholson v. U.S.

Inverse condemnation in the wake of Hurricane Katrina

Wilkie v. Robbins

Exercise of Ownership Rights/RICO and Bivens Claims

District of Columbia

Rumber v. District of Columbia

Williamson County Doctrine/Ripeness Requirements for “Public Use” Claims

Foggy Bottom Ass’n v. Dist. of Columbia Office of Planning

Regulatory Taking, Zoning

Cases Decided Under Williamson County Doctrine

Park and Planning v. Washington Grove

McNamara v. City of Rittman

Barton v. City of Midwest City

Langan v. Town of Cave Creek

Sterngass v. Town of Woodbury / Watson Construction Co v. City of Gainesville

LaSalle Bank, N.A., Trustee v. City of Oakbrook Terrace / CIS Communications, LLC v. County of Jefferson


The Law of Eminent Domain

A single resource for eminent domain practitioners, this guide is a reference for questions about eminent domain and condemnation procedure in every state and the District of Columbia.


A Century of Legal Ethics: Trial Lawyers and the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics

The ABA Canons of Ethics was adopted in 1908 and created ethical standards for lawyers.