October 16, 2006
Supreme Court Denies Cert In Takings Case
Scotusblog has the scoop on the Court's denial of cert in Drebick v. City of Olympia, an exactions case involving fees imposed on a new project to cover the cost of additional services. Frankly, it would be nice if the Court would hold off on granting cert on any takings cases for a few years so that (a) I can finally spend more time on my non-takings research interests and (b) we can all continue to beat the Kelo horse without any distractions. Maybe I should send a note to Chief Justice Roberts requesting that the Court take my research agenda into account in its cert decisions. A new takings case would be great two or three terms from now. In the meantime, though, let's leave this stuff to the lower courts.
[Comments are held for approval, so there will be some delay in posting]
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Supreme Court Denies Cert In Takings Case:
Tracked on Oct 17, 2006 12:29:56 AM
» Cert Denied in Exaction Appeal from inversecondemnation.com
The US Supreme Court today denied review to an appeal seeking to overturn Olympia, Washington's requirement that a developer pay a traffic impact fee as a condition of developing a four-story office building. Drebick v. City of Olympia. Olympia demanded [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 17, 2006 1:12:30 AM
Ah, shucks - where's the fun in that?
Ben - in your piece on Lingle v. Chevron you say, "At last, some clarity." Again, where's the fun in "clarity" -- especially when it comes to takings and especially when the court can keep muddying the waters with substantive due process considerations??!! Wouldn't law professors have more fun if, every year, the court handed down one takings case which managed to add further confusion to already confused doctrine??!! Think of all the law review papers which could then be penned by aspiring tenure seekers, attempting to "clarify" SCOTUS doctrines! Think of all the hair-pulling agony you can cause 1Ls in their property final exams!!
Posted by: Kurt Paulsen | Oct 16, 2006 1:55:44 PM
But Kurt, that's exactly the problem. I'm constitutionally incapable (no pun intended) of not commenting on a Supreme Court takings case, and I have my doubts about whether the next one will follow Lingle and add to clarity. There are (believe it or not) other fascinating property issues just begging for scholarly time. All I'm asking for is for the Court to pace itself and limit itself to granting cert on takings cases every three or four years. This would allow for plenty of fun, but wouldn't make my scholarly life all-takings-all-the-time.
Posted by: Ben Barros | Oct 16, 2006 2:35:22 PM