Weekly litigation report — June 24, 2017

Supreme Court goes squishy on property rights Free speech includes freedom to insult Free speech means letting high school kids be high school kids Howling at the wolf listing Doing time even if you didn’t know you committed the crime  Washington … Continue reading

Weekly litigation report — May 20, 2017

Amicus brief filed for contractor long frozen out of contracts Settlement reached in mobile home park case Cap and trade appealed Prairie dog ruling petition to the 10th Circuit Reply filed in Kinderace petition to Supreme Court Affirmative action case … Continue reading

Weekly litigation update — March 25, 2017

Oral argument in Murr We had our oral argument in Murr v. Wisconsin. It was a tough argument with lots of questions throughout the argument.  We trust our answers helped dispel some of that confusion.  All in all, it was a … Continue reading

Media coverage of Supreme Court oral argument in Murr v. State of Wisconsin

This morning, the historic property rights case of Murr v. State of Wisconsin and St. Croix County was argued at the Supreme Court by John M. Groen, PLF’s Executive Vice President and General Counsel. Listen to our Courting Liberty podcast on … Continue reading

Weekly litigation report – February 3, 2017

PLF asks Supreme Court to review challenge to California mining ban PLF challenges California gray wolf listing Supreme Court sets oral argument in Murr More Supreme Court arguments set for the March calendar PLF asks Supreme Court to review challenge … Continue reading

Supreme Court schedules oral argument in Murr for March 20, 2017

Today, the United States Supreme Court issued its oral argument calendar for March, 2017. Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is pleased to note that the Court included PLF’s important property rights case, Murr v. State of Wisconsin, on that March calendar. The … Continue reading

Washington’s “relevant parcel” analysis is pure shenanigans

Takings law is famous for its thorny inquiries. One of the prickliest is the so-called “relevant parcel” determination. In every regulatory takings case, the court must begin by identifying the nature of the property at issue—i.e., the “relevant parcel.” It … Continue reading