Search Results
Use the filters on the left-hand side of this screen to refine the results further by topic or document type.

Green Ridge, City of v. Kreisel

The court holds that a trial court incorrectly concluded that a city ordinance regulating junkyards was a zoning ordinance subject to notice-and-hearing requirements. A junkyard owner who had been cited for several violations of the ordinance claimed that the ordinance was inapplicable because it wa...

Huish Detergents, Inc. v. Warren County, Ky.

The court holds that a lower court improperly dismissed a laundry detergent manufacturer's claim that an exclusive franchise agreement between a county and a solid waste handler violated the dormant U.S. Commerce Clause. The agreement gave the waste handler the exclusive right to collect and process...

Leland v. Moran

The court grants in part and denies in part a New York municipal village's motion to dismiss property owners' negligence and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against the village for failure to address an unlicensed solid waste management facility's violations of the municipal zoning code. The...

L.C. Dev. Co. v. Lincoln County

The court holds that a county in Missouri can regulate the location of solid waste facilities. A development company challenged a county regulation that prohibits the location of a sanitary landfill within one-quarter mile of any occupied dwelling. A trial court denied the company's motion for summa...

Adams Outdoor Adver. v. E. Lansing, City of

The court holds that a municipal regulation prohibiting billboards on rooftops did not effect a taking of an outdoor advertiser's interest in its rooftop signs. The regulation, enacted in 1975, prohibited rooftop billboards after 1987. The advertiser renewed its leases for rooftop billboards with se...

Comment on <em>Rethinking the ESA to Reflect Human Dominion Over Nature</em>

Above my desk at work, I keep a button that reads "Save the Ugly Animals Too." It is a reminder that more than just the charismatic megafauna, such as wolves and bald eagles and grizzly bears and whales, are worth conserving. From the standpoint of protecting the web of life, including the ecosystems that benefit us all by providing services such as water purification, flood control, nurseries for our fish and shellfish, and opportunities for outdoor recreation, it is often as important to conserve the lesser known species, the cogs and wheels that drive those ecosystems.

Above All, Try <i>Something</i>: Two Small Steps Forward for Endangered Species

In a recent essay, Katrina Wyman suggests four substantial reforms aimed at improving implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and furthering species recovery: (1) decoupling listing decisions from permanent species protection;3 (2) requiring the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to implement cost-effective species protection measures;5 (3) prioritizing funding for biological hotspots;6 and (4) establishing additional protected areas.

Wyman's <em>Rethinking the ESA</em>: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Remedies

Katrina Wyman has penned a bold, provocative, and innovative critique of the capability of the Endangered Species Act (ESA or Act) to meet the challenges of an increasingly human-dominated world. Bold because the ESA, perhaps more than any other environmental law, has impassioned champions who disfavor dissent. It is no easy task to critique a law with the truly noble mission to preserve life other than our own, particularly when the law's basic premise is that the mission's success is critically dependent on abundant and altruistic actions by us.

<i>Kelo</i>'s Legacy

Editors' Summary: Rather than signaling the death of private property rights, as media and the public initially feared, the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London ushered in an era of increased state and federal protection for private property. In this Article, Daniel H. Cole examines Kelo's repercussions for urban redevelopment. He begins with a description of the case, and then examines the resulting backlash from the media and public opinion, which decried the decision as unduly expanding eminent domain powers.

Confusion About "Change in Value" and "Return on Equity" Approaches to the <i>Penn Central</i> Test in Temporary Takings

Editors' Summary: In this Article, William W. Wade evaluates the conceptual measurement of economic impact within the Penn Central test for income-producing properties recently adjudicated in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The discussion considers measurement of the denominator of the takings fraction related to Penn Central's parcel as a whole and whether it differs between permanent and temporary takings.