Search for: "Mobile Transportation Co. v. Mobile"
Results 121 - 140
of 160
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 May 2011, 7:24 am
Property owners asked the Court to review the Ninth Circuit's sharply divided en banc opinion, which held that the City's mobile home rent control ordinance did not work a regulatory taking because the fact that the Guggenheims purchased their property subject to a rent-control regime was "fatal" to their investment-backed expectations under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 12:01 am
The brief argues: Although Amici agree that the Ninth Circuit decision below completely misconstrued this Court’s decision in Palazzolo, the Ninth Circuit was able to do this end-run of Palazzolo because of the underlying incoherence in the test that was first set out in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 8:28 am
As this Court confirmed in Lingle, to determine if a regulation goes too far, a court should balance three factually-intensive factors that were identified in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 6:31 pm
Co. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 1:44 pm
”); see also Gulf Oil Trading Co. v. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 12:01 am
City of Goleta, No. 06-56306 (Dec. 22, 2010), a sharply divided en banc Ninth Circuit concluded that Goleta's mobile home rent control ordinance was not a taking under the three-factor regulatory taking test of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 2:28 am
Part V will review the legal basis on which the majority rests its authority for the rules, likely to be challenged in court. [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 7:05 am
Fields v. [read post]
Ninth Circuit En Banc Panel Finds Goleta’s Mobile Home Rent Control Ordinance Did Not Cause a Taking
23 Dec 2010, 11:22 am
The court found that the plaintiffs did not have a regulatory takings claim because none of the three factors for establishing a regulatory taking, set forth Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 8:41 pm
It is charged that since 2007, co-defendan [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 8:43 am
But his administration’s decision on this case, Connecticut v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am
Bashlin Co. v. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 3:00 am
Patent No. 7,595,764 owned by Electronic Controlled Systems, Inc. and entitled ENCLOSED MOBILE/TRANSPORTABLE SATELLITE ANTENNA. [read post]
15 Aug 2010, 6:29 am
This is language from the Texas Supreme Court case, Mid-Century Insurance Co. of Texas v. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 12:29 pm
Patent No. 7,679,573 owned by Electronic Controlled Systems, Inc. and entitled ENCLOSED MOBILE/TRANSPORTABLE MOTORIZED ANTENNA SYSTEM. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 3:37 pm
Motz, to felony obstruction of justice charges and violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships related to concealing deliberate vessel pollution from the M/V Iorana, a Greek flagged cargo ship that made port calls in Baltimore, Tacoma, Wash., and New Orleans. [read post]
11 Jul 2010, 6:04 am
In McCoy v. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 3:01 am
The court found the case ripe under Williamson County, and addressed the merits of the takings claim under the three-factor regulatory taking test of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 7:34 pm
Co. v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 10:04 am
Click HereAlaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to Pay Nearly $1 Million for Alleged Clean Water Act Violations. [read post]
