Mediaboss Marketing

The city of Denton is expected to pay out about $1 million to settle a long-running inverse condemnation case over power lines placed along Bonnie Brae Street in 2009.

Inverse condemnation is defined as government taking private property without fair compensation, which is required under the Fifth Amendment.

The property owners attorney, Charles Orsburn, asked Judge Doug Robison of the 393rd Judicial District Court to dismiss the case during a hearing Friday afternoon. But Robison said that he would retain the case on his docket for another 90 days.

All but three of the property owners have settled with the city in the past few months, according to court records. The city agreed to pay each property owner in exchange for dropping out of the lawsuit.

Orsburn told the judge that he and the citys attorneys have agreed to finish the last three property owners settlements even if the lawsuit is dismissed.

Weve got some subrogation of lien problems with banks out of California, Orsburn told the judge.

The city needs clear title to pay for an easement. Typically, the city works through any title issues in a condemnation case, according to Paul Williamson, the citys real estate manager.

But to settle inverse condemnation, the burden to convey clear title is on the property owners, Orsburn said in an interview after the hearing. Some of the lien holders havent been very cooperative, he added.

Without that condition satisfied, the three properties would end up in regular condemnation hearings, Orsburn said.

As it should have been in the beginning, he said. If I hadnt filed this lawsuit, these people wouldnt have received anything. The 2,000-pound gorilla rule no longer applies.

Read more from the original source:
City to pay about $1M to settle suit

Topic: The Fifth Amendment #39;s right to counsel attaches
Look today on new interesting topic - The Fifth Amendment #39;s right to counsel attaches. *---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*--*---*---*---* Check out more e...

By: Funnypedia

Go here to see the original:
Topic: The Fifth Amendment's right to counsel attaches - Video

The Making Of The Twenty Fifth Amendment Part 7
Think. Create. Inspire. Relax. Become.

By: LPTrax

See the original post here:
The Making Of The Twenty Fifth Amendment Part 7 - Video

Fifth amendment project
Oh, right. The poison. The poison for Kuzco, the poison chosen especially to kill Kuzco. Kuzco #39;s poison. That poison?

By: Haley Ebertz

See original here:
Fifth amendment project - Video

Although the news is likely to be buried in the understandable hoopla over the same-sex marriage case, the Supreme Court today also agreed to review Horne v. Department of Agriculture, a case where property owners argue that the federal governments demand that they turn over large quantities of raisins is a taking for which they are entitled to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The governments effort to seize the raisins is part of a program intended to increase the price of raisinsby creating an artificial scarcity on the market, thereby benefiting producers at the expense of consumers. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the owners claim in large part because it concluded that the just compensation requirement of the Takings Clause affords less protection to personal [property] such as the raisins, than to real property.

Will Baude has a good post explaining the case in greater detail here. As he notes, I joined an amicus brief co-authored with several other property and constitutional law scholars urging the Supreme Court to take the case and overrule the Ninth Circuit. The brief explains in some detail why the Takings Clause protects personal property on par with real property, and demonstrates that that understanding goes all the way back to the Founding.

Horne is now one of the rare cases that has gone to the Supreme Court twice. In 2013, the Court unanimously rejected the federal governments claim that the property owners should not even be allowed to present their Takings Clause argument in federal court without first paying some $483,000 in fines and pursuing various likely futile administrative remedies.

Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and popular political participation. He is the author of "The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain" (forthcoming) and "Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter."

Read the original here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Raisin takings case returns to the Supreme Court