Civil Litigation,
Government,
Constitutional Law
Dec. 5, 2019
Riverside federal judge's ruling may have undercut Knick v Township of Scott
Attorneys representing property owners who say the government took their land without paying for it were emboldened by the newly-endowed ability to file inverse condemnation or takings cases directly in the plaintiff-preferred federal court venue. Or so they thought.
After the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, attorneys representing property owners who say the government took their land without paying for it were emboldened by the newly-endowed ability to file inverse condemnation or takings cases directly in the plaintiff-preferred federal court venue. Or so they thought.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up
Related Content
U.S. Supreme Court, Civil Litigation, Judges and Judiciary, Government, Constitutional Law
Plaintiff appeals district judge’s defiant takings ruling to keep Knick alive
By Blaise Scemama
U.S. Supreme Court, Constitutional Law
Ding dong, the witch is dead!
By Michael M. Berger
U.S. Supreme Court, Constitutional Law
Opening the federal courthouse door to takings claims
By Marc D. Alexander
