Podcasts about takings

In poker there's a move called “Buying the pot”. This is when one person makes a very large bet in an attempt to discourage others from continuing the hand. But what if we're not talking poker? What if we're talking permit fees for the use of your own land? That is exactly what George Sheetz sued the County of El Dorado California for.

In a new effort to enhance communications in the Catskills, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is partnering with New York's ConnectALL initiative to expand wireless and broadband access throughout the New York City watershed. The initiative was motivated by operational challenges faced by DEP staff due to poor cell coverage, and a recent Request for Information (RFI) seeks input from telecommunications providers and other stakeholders on how to eliminate cell phone dead zones. In this episode, DEP Commissioner Rohit "Rit" Aggarwala and Water Supply Deputy Commissioner Paul Rush join host Brett Barry for a discussion about the RFI; why a robust communications network is increasingly crucial; and how a network could be built to benefit everyone in the region.To put the complicated NYC/Catskills relationship into context, we check in with Lize Mogel––producer of the podcast series, Views from the Watershed––for a fascinating historical perspective. We also hear from local Town Clerk Joyce Grant, whose anecdotal evidence illustrates just how dangerous cellular dead zones can be in the remote Catskills, where land lines and cable internet can also be scarce. Grant is frustrated by what she characterizes as a minority of residents who are opposed to cell towers marring the mountain landscape. Referring to a proposal for a tower to be built in Shandaken, she says, "It's going to be a pole that's 85 feet tall, and it may be viewable above the trees... but it's a pole... that could save lives. We have to look at it like that."For more than a century, the Catskills have provided New York City with billions of gallons of clean drinking water. Will NYC be the unlikely partner that –– finally –– brings wireless coverage to the Catskills? 00:00 Intro00:26 NYC DEP's Wireless Communication Initiative01:44 Joyce Grant's Pursuit for Better Communication07:17 Challenges of Cell Service in the Catskills10:34 Community Efforts and Future Plans15:12 The Catskills and NYC Water Connection16:15 The "Takings" and Eminent Domain19:06 The 1990s MOA and Water Quality23:29 Controversial Land Acquisition Program24:24 City's Land Ownership and Broadband Infrastructure24:56 New York City's Evolving Relationship with the Catskills25:37 DEP's Land Purchase Strategy27:46 Recreation and Utility Easements on City Land29:11 Challenges and Opportunities for Broadband Expansion32:06 Future of Wireless Communications in the Catskills34:41 Funding and Implementation of Broadband Project36:22 Historical Context and Technological Evolution38:50 Public Engagement and Relationship Building43:42 Climate Change and Water Supply45:36 Personal Reflections and Memories of the Catskills49:37 Conclusion and Podcast Information

When the government, in the form of the police, damage your property, who pays for it? In the case of VIcki Baker v. City of McKinney, TX the police had to damage her property to apprehend a fleeing felon. However, when the city refused to pay for the damages, Ms. Baker sued. The District Court found for her, but the Circuit Court overturned. When she asked the Supreme Court to review, they declined certiorari. Two justices expressed concern about the prospect of the government damaging homes without paying compensation.

Speaker: Gregory Fox, Wayne State UniversityDate: Friday Lunchtime Lecture - Friday 24 January 2025Summary: Does international law place any constraints on a possible Ukraine-Russia peace agreement? While we can only speculate about its contents, two aspects appear certain: Ukraine will be asked to relinquish (at a minimum) territory now occupied by Russia, and it will only contemplate entering into an agreement because Russia invaded its territory. Professor Fox will examine the implications of these and other factors for the validity of an agreement.Gregory H. Fox is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University School of Law, where he is the Director of the Program for International Legal Studies. Professor Fox is an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public International Law and Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and a Fellow at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale Law School, among other institutions. Professor Fox has written widely on a variety of international law topics, including civil war peace agreements, the powers of the UN Security Council, international occupation law, international control of territory, and international efforts to promote democratic governance. His most recent article, Of Looting, Land and Loss: The New International Law of Takings, was published in Volume 65 of the Harvard International Law Journal. Professor Fox was co-counsel to the State of Eritrea in the Zukar-Hanish arbitration with the Republic of Yemen concerning the status of a group of islands in the southern Red Sea. He has also served as counsel in several human rights cases in US courts. Professor Fox was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation/Social Science Research Council Fellowship in International Peace and Security. He began his career in the Litigation Department of the firm Hale & Dorr, now WilmerHale. He is a graduate of Bates College and New York University Law School.

Speaker: Gregory Fox, Wayne State UniversityDate: Friday Lunchtime Lecture - Friday 24 January 2025Summary: Does international law place any constraints on a possible Ukraine-Russia peace agreement? While we can only speculate about its contents, two aspects appear certain: Ukraine will be asked to relinquish (at a minimum) territory now occupied by Russia, and it will only contemplate entering into an agreement because Russia invaded its territory. Professor Fox will examine the implications of these and other factors for the validity of an agreement.Gregory H. Fox is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University School of Law, where he is the Director of the Program for International Legal Studies. Professor Fox is an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public International Law and Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and a Fellow at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale Law School, among other institutions. Professor Fox has written widely on a variety of international law topics, including civil war peace agreements, the powers of the UN Security Council, international occupation law, international control of territory, and international efforts to promote democratic governance. His most recent article, Of Looting, Land and Loss: The New International Law of Takings, was published in Volume 65 of the Harvard International Law Journal. Professor Fox was co-counsel to the State of Eritrea in the Zukar-Hanish arbitration with the Republic of Yemen concerning the status of a group of islands in the southern Red Sea. He has also served as counsel in several human rights cases in US courts. Professor Fox was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation/Social Science Research Council Fellowship in International Peace and Security. He began his career in the Litigation Department of the firm Hale & Dorr, now WilmerHale. He is a graduate of Bates College and New York University Law School.

Speaker: Gregory Fox, Wayne State UniversityDate: Friday Lunchtime Lecture - Friday 24 January 2025Summary: Does international law place any constraints on a possible Ukraine-Russia peace agreement? While we can only speculate about its contents, two aspects appear certain: Ukraine will be asked to relinquish (at a minimum) territory now occupied by Russia, and it will only contemplate entering into an agreement because Russia invaded its territory. Professor Fox will examine the implications of these and other factors for the validity of an agreement.Gregory H. Fox is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University School of Law, where he is the Director of the Program for International Legal Studies. Professor Fox is an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public International Law and Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and a Fellow at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale Law School, among other institutions. Professor Fox has written widely on a variety of international law topics, including civil war peace agreements, the powers of the UN Security Council, international occupation law, international control of territory, and international efforts to promote democratic governance. His most recent article, Of Looting, Land and Loss: The New International Law of Takings, was published in Volume 65 of the Harvard International Law Journal. Professor Fox was co-counsel to the State of Eritrea in the Zukar-Hanish arbitration with the Republic of Yemen concerning the status of a group of islands in the southern Red Sea. He has also served as counsel in several human rights cases in US courts. Professor Fox was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation/Social Science Research Council Fellowship in International Peace and Security. He began his career in the Litigation Department of the firm Hale & Dorr, now WilmerHale. He is a graduate of Bates College and New York University Law School.

Jaguars QB Mac Jones speaks with media on Thursday of Week 17 ahead of Titans vs. Jaguars.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jaguars QB Mac Jones speaks with media on Thursday of Week 17 ahead of Titans vs. Jaguars.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 In this episode Nicoleta talks about healing and happiness with Marie Young, Stress Management Coach from Texas, USA. From childhood neglect to depressionThe impact of the absent parentsComing from divorced familiesLacking role modelling and supportBetween the compare and despair modesAbout the hardening of the heartStarting healing in the 20sThe emergence of the post-traumatic growth Takings from the corporate worldHappiness in human connectionWisdom of the divine masculineThe unconditional love of the divine feminineUsing the technology of yoga to return back homeHow we can yoke ourselves to the divineWhen yoga can be learned by everyoneHow discovering yoga helps you surrenderContentment and bliss in mixing yoga and meditationThe space of balance we can return toConnection with the self and your intuitionConsciousness as the sum of awareness and love Connect with Marie here:www.bodyinformedresiliency.comwww.mariebyoung.com

Summary of Chapter 6: Land Use Controls and Regulation. Land use controls and regulations are vital tools used by governments and private parties to manage how land is developed, maintained, and used. These regulations ensure the harmonious coexistence of various land uses, promote public welfare, and protect environmental and community interests. This chapter covers key aspects of land use controls, including zoning laws, eminent domain, environmental regulations, and private land use agreements. Zoning Laws and Ordinances. Purpose: Zoning laws are established to separate different land uses, such as residential, commercial, and industrial areas, to promote organized and sustainable urban development. Types of Zoning: Includes residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, mixed-use, and special-purpose zoning, each with specific rules and regulations. Legal Challenges: Issues such as nonconforming uses, variances, spot zoning, and exclusionary zoning often arise, requiring legal scrutiny and resolution. Eminent Domain and Takings. Eminent Domain: The government's power to take private property for public use, with just compensation to the owner, for projects like infrastructure, parks, or utilities. Takings: Occurs when government regulations limit property use so significantly that they constitute a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment, requiring compensation. Legal Cases: Key legal cases, such as Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, have shaped the interpretation and application of eminent domain and regulatory takings. Environmental Regulations. Federal and State Laws: Environmental regulations, including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, are designed to protect natural resources and public health by controlling pollution and managing land use impacts. Environmental Impact Assessments: These assessments evaluate potential environmental effects of proposed projects and are essential for informed decision-making. Legal Challenges: Compliance with environmental regulations often leads to legal disputes between property owners, developers, and regulatory agencies. Private Land Use Controls. Easements: Legal rights that allow specific use of another's land, such as access or utility placement, which can be appurtenant, in gross, prescriptive, or express. Covenants and Equitable Servitudes: Private agreements that impose restrictions or obligations on land use to maintain community standards and property values. Legal Considerations: Disputes can arise over the interpretation and enforcement of these private controls, with courts considering factors like intent, notice, and changed circumstances. Conclusion. Land use controls and regulations are critical for achieving balanced, sustainable development that respects both private property rights and public interests. By understanding zoning laws, eminent domain, environmental regulations, and private land use controls, individuals and communities can navigate complex land use challenges effectively. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Today on Clairsy & Lisa's Perth Pub Crawl, the guys spoke to Michael Parks who was in the band Perfect Strangers. He reminisced about his time with the band, the death of lead singer Andy Clayton-Smith and Perfect Strangers rivalry with V Capri.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

JC Cole spent 18 years in Latvia from 1992-2010 he didn't hear about these Russian challenges, he lived them.

After a brief stint in the wine cellar, the Thistledowns escape in a most unexpected way. Though what takes their place or would for just a little more magic trade…? They're only beginning to name. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/herebetygers/message

The interpretation and application of the regulatory takings principle have evolved over time, but the fundamental principle remains: the government cannot take private property (including mineral rights) for public use without providing just compensation to the owner.  In this episode, we talk abut cases where mineral owner's property rights were taken by govenment regulation and what protections we have to ensure that we receive "just compensation." As always, links to the resources we mentioned in this episode can be found in the show notes at mineralrightspodcast.com.

#SCOTUS: Takings: taxes and exaction. Richard Epstein, Hoover Institution https://www.hoover.org/research/how-governments-abuse-their-permitting-powers 1910

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre (January 8) - Civil Rights, National Security; Whether a lawsuit alleging that the plaintiff was wrongly placed on the “No Fly List” can go forward when the government has removed the plaintiff from the list and promised not to put him back on the list “based on the currently available information.”Campos-Chaves v. Garland (January 8) - Immigration; Whether the federal government provided adequate notice of an immigration proceeding, allowing the immigration court to enter a deportation order when the non-citizen does not appear.U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC (January 9) - Bankruptcy; In the wake of the court's 2022 decision holding unconstitutional a federal law imposing higher fees on bankruptcy filers in 48 states, what should the remedy for that constitutional violation be?Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (January 9) - Property Rights; Property-rights challenge by California landowner to nearly $24,000 in development fees levied by the county as a condition for receiving a permit to build a manufactured home.Smith v. Arizona (January 10) - Sixth Amendment, Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him, allows prosecutors to use expert testimony about evidence – here, a report prepared by a different crime lab analyst who no longer worked at the lab and did not testify at trial – that was not itself admitted into evidence, on the grounds that the testifying expert was simply offering his own opinion and that the defendant could have subpoenaed the original analyst.Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. (January 16) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether the failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K, which requires a company to disclose known trends or uncertainties that are likely to have a material impact on its financial position, can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits deception in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, even if there has not been an otherwise-misleading statement.Devillier v. Texas (January 16) - Property Rights, Takings; Whether property owners can seek compensation under the Constitution for “taking” of their property by the state, if the state has not specifically given them a right to sue.Relentless v. Department of Commerce (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.Featuring: Eric B. Boettcher, Partner, Wright Close & BargerAllyson Newton Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPHon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, Former General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Former United States Ambassador to East TimorMark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolModerator: Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP

James Cameron-Wilson reports on the UK box office. Takings have dropped 25% but Wonka still rules. Godzilla Minus One is #2, a rare foreign language subtitled movie to ride high in the charts, though taking only £817,000. James found it a decent monster movie but no more. On Netflix, he thought Rustin, the real story of the gay civil rights activist, interesting despite much overacting. He was delighted, however, by Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget, which he reckoned not just the best animated movie of the year but one of the best movies of 2023 full stop. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

#Betof2021: 1/2: Takings and SCOTUS before and after the New Deal.@RichardAEpstein @HooverInst (original post April 1, 2021) https://www.hoover.org/research/labor-law-and-takings-clause-collide 1920 FDR

#Betof2021: 2/2: Takings and SCOTUS before and after the New Deal.@RichardAEpstein @HooverInst nst (original post April 1, 2021) https://www.hoover.org/research/labor-law-and-takings-clause-collide 1935 FDR

The trial court had allowed a Takings claim to be made. www.patreon.com/stevelehto

Matthew Ackerman of the Ackerman & Ackerman law firm in Michigan joins the show to discuss what he has called “the pitfalls of objectively measured just compensation” – in other words, the ways in which fair market value may not make a property owner whole in the wake of a taking. Matthew also dives into potential reforms to address the intangible losses common in takings. Read more about this issue in his blog post here.   Please share your thoughts on the show or this episode with me. I'm on X @J_Clint. If you have thoughts about future show guests or ideas for episodes, please let me know.

Striking nurses latest, airport parking takings down, Katie Hopkins in Douglas, American Bully XL comment & online tax return help. It's Mannin Line with Andy Wint #iom #manninline #manxradio

The The Lebor Gabála tells of a series of mythical Irish migration stories, which can be traced back to a very early date. Its history is somewhat complex and, although fascinating, it is not an 'easy read'. So, join Chris and Jamie as they share Jamie's new telling. 'The Writing of The Takings'. Jamie has created an entertaining and highly amusing interpretation, which gets to the heart of how and why these mythical migration stories were so valued. Read the full version of The Writing of the Takings. Highly recommended! Jamie is planning to record an audio version of 'The Writing of the Takings'. I will add a link to this as soon as it is available. Meanwhile, find out more about Jamie's writing on Jamiemadden.org About the Lebor Gabála / The Book of Invasions or the Book of the Taking of Ireland The ‘Book of Invasions' (‘Leabhar Gabhála' in modern Irish) is not the name of a specific manuscript. Rather it is an origin legend of the Irish people that exists in many variant versions, in poetry and prose. The origins of the tradition can be traced to the seventh century, although the earliest surviving manuscripts are much later. The story was extensively reworked in verse form in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Over time, prose versions were derived from the poetry, and additional historical material was added. It was revised again in the seventeenth century by the team of historians known as the Four Masters. It continued to be accepted as a plausible story of the settlement of people on the island of Ireland long after that. The core of the story of the peopling of Ireland was built on top of biblical traditions. It begins with Noah and the Flood, and Noah's granddaughter Cesair (she does not feature in the Bible), who was said to be the first to arrive in Ireland. The next wave involved the Parthalonians, descendants of Japhet, son of Noah, but they succumbed to plague. The third wave of settlers, descendants of Nemed, were vaguely related to the Parthalonians. The Nemedians were eventually defeated by the Formorians. Some Nemedians later returned from Greece as the Fir Bolg. They, in turn, were replaced by the Tuatha Dé Danann. A second strand traces other descendants of Japhet, including Fénius Farsaid and his grandson, Goídel Glas (the term ‘Gael' is traced to him). Later, Breóghan, descended from Goídel Glas, viewed Ireland from a tower in Galicia on a clear night. His grandson, Míl Espáine, went to Ireland, where he defeated the Tuatha Dé Danann. The Clann Mhíleadh (‘sons of Míl'), Ír, Éibhear and Éireamhón and their descendants, became established in Ireland. From https://www.ria.ie/leabhar-gabhala-book-invasions

Geraldine Tyler will get her thousands of dollars back from her local government thanks to a recent Supreme Court opinion ending the practice known as "home equity theft." What's that mean going forward? Tommy Berry comments. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Support the showIf you would like to discuss legal topics in person, join Law Schoolers Pro at https://lawschoolers.com/law-schoolers-pro/Disclaimers:1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage which means that there will be bumps, dings, and some pops.2. The information contained in these episodes are for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.

China's box office ranks first in the world in total earnings from the beginning of the year, with sales reaching over 530 million dollars, 14-percent higher than North America (00:59). We look at the significance of Chinese New Year to locals in the UK, and what facts they know about it (08:07). South American leaders are gathering in Argentina to discuss a wide range of regional issues (14:57).

Jon Houghton of Pacific Legal Foundation joins the podcast today to talk about regulatory takings.  This is a complex area of the law, but Jon is a true expert and breaks it down into understandable pieces.  He discusses how practitioners can assess when a regulation has risen to the level of a taking.  He also discusses regulatory taking issues and cases that are current.   Please share your thoughts on the show or this episode with me. I'm on Twitter @J_Clint. If you have thoughts about future show guests or ideas for episodes, please let me know.

Forget Biden's claim that his government is "fighting inflation." His government is creating inflation, and in so doing robbing people of their savings and earnings. Original Article: "Inflation Takings Require Just Compensation: Slash Governments!" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.

Forget Biden's claim that his government is "fighting inflation." His government is creating inflation, and in so doing robbing people of their savings and earnings. Original Article: "Inflation Takings Require Just Compensation: Slash Governments!" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.

Joined by Dave from the https://alabamafootballpodcast.com/ to talk the Texans going double Alabama, Crimson Tide, draft selections: the 44th Overall John Metchie & the 75th Overall Christian Harris. Talking all things 'Bama & the prospective roles and undoubted talents of these two prospects.  PodcastTexans.com 

Many of us will be familiar with the lip sync videos, pranks and dance moves synonymous with the social media site of the moment - TikTok. But more and more people are attempting to make money from the app. Siofra Mulqueen finds out more...

Takings. Experts discuss the potential demise of the Penn Central four-part test and the difficulty in determining compensation for temporary and episodic access requirements. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; and Hamid Kahn, Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Takings. Experts discuss the potential demise of the Penn Central four-part test and the difficulty in determining compensation for temporary and episodic access requirements. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School; Michael McConnell, Professor, Stanford Law School; and Hamid Kahn, Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

How can the government encourage us to keep our trees? In all kinds of ways, but not through mandating the replanting of trees regardless of the landowner's mitigation efforts. At least that's what Wesley Hottot reports the Sixth Circuit said last week. There's also a little excessive fines talk, which is worth your time as Wesley is kind of “the excessive fines guy.” He's also a birdwatcher, which comes in handy in this tree case. Meanwhile, there's some trouble on the sidewalks of New York, especially as it relates to a federal statute protecting “places of worship.” Dan Rankin of IJ tells us the Second Circuit thinks that might be many locations, but not a sidewalk. There's also some Commerce Clause talk and what's a “substantial effect” on commerce these days. F.P. Development, LLC v. Charter Township of Canton, https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0240p-06.pdf Jingrong v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, Inc., https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e636d947-d9e2-44a4-9967-bbad7fe70ba6/1/doc/18-2626_complete_opn.pdf The Sidewalks of New York, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsx_uxISjM0 Kirtland's Warbler, https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Kirtlands_Warbler/id Hermit Thrush, https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Hermit_Thrush/id Wesley Hottot, https://ij.org/staff/whottot/ Daniel Rankin, https://ij.org/staff/daniel-rankin/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCqDbZTI7kIws11kEhed/overview Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice/short-circuit Google: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iz26kyzdcpodkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org

Today, we're joined by Professor Lee Fennell, the Max Pam Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Professor Fennell has recently written an article for an upcoming publication of the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy entitled Escape Room: Implicit Takings After Cedar Point Nursery. In today's interview, we have a great discussion of her article, which gives a creative and detailed analysis of the Supreme Court's Cedar Point opinion. In particular, the article dissects the many exceptions the Court has enumerated to the newly expanded definition of a per se physical taking. We also discuss the potential practical consequences of this ruling for various intrusions of government onto and burdens upon private property. Professor Fennell's paper: The Escape Room: Implicit Takings After Cedar Point Nursery The Supreme Court Opinion: Cedar Point Nursery vs. Hassid Professor Fennell's book recommendation: Lakefront: Public Trust and Private Rights in Chicago by Joseph D. Kearney and Thomas W. Merrill Please share your thoughts on the show or this episode with me.  I'm on Twitter @J_Clint.  If you have thoughts about future show guests or ideas for episodes, please let me know.

HOLA! I have missed you all!  I am back better than ever..well at least that is what I think :)  On this chisme and in honor of Self-development month,  I shared what I did during my break and how I decided to take this time to actually take care of myself; and we are not talking about massages or naps... I decided to do some thought work which has been crucial to allow me to actually live and create the life I deserve and want.  I am sharing my experience with therapy and some tips on how you can practice some self-awareness.  If you like this podcast, don't forget to leave a review on Apple podcasts and also share it with your loved ones.  You can also follow the podcast and my crazyness on IG: @chismethatmatterspodcast --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/chismethatmatterspodcast/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/chismethatmatterspodcast/support

Are you familiar with eminent domain? Do you know where that is authorized in the Constitution of the United States? Do you know the requirements and limitations of eminent domain? A recent case out the Supreme Court shows just how dangerous it is for We the People to not know what the Constitution says. According to this court, not only does Congress have the authority to use eminent domain, but to authorize private companies to use that power for their own private gain. Sadly, not only the courts, but most Americans believe that it's legal.

You didn't think we forgot about all those Supreme Court cases we haven't talked about yet, did you? Josh and Kristen take a (much-needed) break from their summer vacations to reunite and get their brains working again by talking through several noteworthy decisions released at the end of the last SCOTUS term. They also dissect a recent poll on "approval" of the Supreme Court, and wrap with some thoughts on the latest eviction moratorium imposed by the CDC. We'll see you in September!

This podcast discusses cases that challenge COVID-19 pandemic regulations as regulatory takings.This podcast is an excerpt from COVID-19 Litigation: A Discourse on Nondelegation, Constitutional Rights and Statutory Interpretation.  This first-of-its-kind analysis of pandemic litigation  is available on Amazon at: https://www.amazon.com/COVID-19-Pandemic-Litigation-Constitutional-Interpretation/dp/B09733DTVT/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=COVID-19+pandemic+litigation&qid=1624303183&s=books&sr=1-1

Earlier this year I wrote A Taking, or Not A Taking, that is the Question about the oral arguments in the case of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. The Supreme Court has rendered its opinion, so now is the time for a review. If you've read many of my case...

Hey everyone! Once again, I'm joined by Jordin Dickerson (@Jordin_Aterria), professor at UNCP in PoliSci, holder of a history and law degree, and current public defender, and we're talking about the "Takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment and some important cases that have shaped the US in the last 20 years or so. While not TOO old as far as history goes, it's still vitally important. I hope you enjoy the episode!

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! In today's episode from our "Listen and Learn" series, we tackle the topic of regulatory takings, which is often tested in crossover essay questions that cover both Property and Constitutional Law issues. In this episode, we discuss: What constitutes a "taking"? Possessory and regulatory takings Distinguishing between the two types of regulatory takings The Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council case The three Penn Central factors, derived from the case Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City The "denominator problem" Analyzing two hypos involving regulatory takings How to organize your answer when the question provides a list of claims by separate parties Resources: “Listen and Learn” series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2015 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/gbx/July2015_CBXSelectedAnswers_EssayQuestions1-6_R.pdf) Podcast Episode 39: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Real Property (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-39-tackling-a-california-bar-exam-essay-real-property/) Podcast Episode 65: Tackling an MEE Real Property Essay Question (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-65-tackling-an-mee-real-property-essay-question/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-140-listen-and-learn-regulatory-takings/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Can the county foreclose on your house because you haven’t paid your taxes, and then just keep the rest of your equity? In Ohio, yeah, they can. That kind of sounds like a taking without just compensation, which is why Ohio attorney Emily White joined us to talk about her recent case at the Sixth Circuit. Then Kirby Thomas West of IJ takes us “up north” where a band of Native Americans argued their land is a reservation under some often-neglected, and often-dishonored, agreements with the federal government. It’s an all Sixth Circuit, all Big Ten, property rights edition of Short Circuit. Transcript forthcoming Harrison v. Montgomery County, https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0103p-06.pdf Oral argument in Harrison v. Montgomery County, https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/court_audio/aud2.php?link=audio/04-29-2021%20-%20Thursday/20-4051%20Alana%20Harrison%20v%20Montgomery%20County%20OH.mp3&name=20-4051%20Alana%20Harrison%20v%20Montgomery%20County%20OH Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians v. Whitmer, https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0109p-06.pdf McGirt v. Oklahoma, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf Thread on Oklahoma history, https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1288098856346034179.html Emily White, https://www.dannlaw.com/attorney-profile/emily-white/ Kirby Thomas West, https://ij.org/staff/kirby-thomas-west/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCqDbZTI7kIws11kEhed/overview Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice/short-circuit Google: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iz26kyzdcpodkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org

Photo:  Front of U.S. Supreme Court Building  John Batchelor ShowCBS Audio Network@Batchelorshow1/2: Takings and SCOTUS before and after the New Deal.@RichardAEpstein @HooverInsthttps://www.hoover.org/research/labor-law-and-takings-clause-collide

Photo: Close-up of door to U.S. Supreme Court The New John Batchelor ShowCBS Audio Network@Batchelorshow2/2: Takings and SCOTUS before and after the New Deal.@RichardAEpstein @HooverInsthttps://www.hoover.org/research/labor-law-and-takings-clause-collide

Richard Epstein analyzes Cedar Point Nursery v. Hasid, a case recently argued before the Supreme Court on whether labor unions should be allowed onto private land against the owners’ will. Along the way, he provides a masterclass in private property law, a look at the development of special legal protections for organized labor, and a reflection on how his legendary book Takings changed the debate over private property rights.

The Faultline Podcast is an audio companion to Rethink Technology Research's Faultline service, a weekly news service that examines the video market – focused on Pay TV, OTT, SVoD, and the technology that supports them. Occasionally, our Rethink TV research wing stops by, to talk about upcoming forecasts and macroeconomic trends we're seeing. Hosted by Alex Davies, Tommy Flanagan, and Rafi Cohen, The Faultline Podcast hits the most important points from the last week's news. If you're in the business world and deal with video content, Faultline is a service you'll want to pay attention to. Find out more at: https://rethinkresearch.biz/product/faultline/ We're on Twitter too: https://twitter.com/_Faultline_ And LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/faultline/

Troutman Sanders and Pepper Hamilton are producing a series of podcasts to discuss litigation topics that have been brought to the forefront by the COVID-19 pandemic and how businesses might be able to prepare and respond. In this episode, Pepper Hamilton partner Tambry Bradford focuses on regulatory takings and executive power to seize property during the COVID-19 crisis, focusing on business closure orders and other orders of state and local governments. Joining Tambry for this podcast are Pepper Hamilton partners Mike Hino and Justin Weber, and Troutman Sanders partners Ashley Taylor and Chris Browning.

Thai Phi from Pink Bellies Food Truck joins Hanna and Robert to talk about Vietnamese food, frozen food, and the issue of respecting food from different cultures. Theme song by The Bluestone Ramblers (thebluestoneramblers.com)