Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Over at Environmental Law Prof, Tim Mulvaney digs into all the happenings in Takings jurisprudence. First, Tim looks at two new state-level takings cases, Severence v. Patterson (Texas) and Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan (New Jersey). Tim then tries to figure out why the Supreme Court decided to hear Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. U.S. He writes, "The Supreme Court's review . . . conceivably could touch on a host of takings issues, including the distinction between government torts and government takings, the reach of the categorical rule applicable to physical invasions set forth in Loretto, the uncertainties surrounding the “temporary” regulatory takings doctrine introduced in First English and refined in Tahoe-Sierra, and the question of whether the government’s intent—here, whether the government intended the water release to be a continually recurring event or a temporary measure—is relevant to determining whether a taking has occurred." The whole post is worth reading.