McNees Litigation Group Receives Prestigious Award | Supreme Court Case Could be Buying Everyone More Trips to the Federal Courthouse
August 28, 2019
McNees Litigation Practice Group Receives Prestigious Professional Excellence Award from the Legal Intelligencer
Each year The Legal Intelligencer recognizes the outstanding work and achievements of law firms and attorneys across the full breadth of the Pennsylvania legal community. We are extremely proud and honored that this year our Litigation Practice Group was named Litigation Department of the Year for General Litigation. The award recognizes law firms in the region that have had significant impact on important litigation matters on behalf of their clients.
“We are proud to receive the top award for achievement and excellence in general litigation from The Legal Intelligencer,” said McNees Chair Brian Jackson. “It is a terrific honor for both our litigation team and our firm. Congratulations to our Litigation Chair, Kandice Hull and her outstanding team of lawyers and professionals on this well-deserved recognition.”
The Group, along with the other 2019 Professional Excellence honorees, were featured in a special editorial supplement which can be viewed here and recognized at an awards reception on Thursday, June 27, 2019 in Philadelphia.
How the Recent U.S. Supreme Court Case of Knick v. Township of Scott Could be Buying Everyone More Trips to the Federal Courthouse
By Dana Chilson
Did you know the right to eminent domain goes as far back as the Magna Carta? Eminent domain is hardly new news, and, as such, recent game changing cases regarding the subject are few and far between. The last major eminent domain case decided by the United States Supreme Court was Kelo v. City of New London (2006), which held that an entity clothed with the power of eminent domain was permitted to acquire property merely to resell it to a private entity. Kelo had an enormous impact on many states, and here in Pennsylvania the case spurred the adoption of the Property Rights Protection Act, which aimed at preventing a repeat of the events that lead to Kelo. The recent decision of Knick v. Township of Scott is likely to have just as great of an impact on litigants.
In Knick, Mrs. Knick, a resident of Scott Township, Lackawanna County, challenged a Township ordinance that permitted others to access her property at certain times of the day because there was a cemetery located thereon. Mrs. Knick brought suit in state court, seeking a declaration that the ordinance effected a taking of her property. She likewise sought an injunction to prevent others from accessing her property and the Township from enforcing the ordinance while the court decided the issues. Notably, Mrs. Knick did not seek compensation by explicitly bringing an inverse condemnation claim, which is a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of property which has been taken by the governmental defendant.
When the state court declined to rule on Mrs. Knick’s requests, Mrs. Knick then filed a claim in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging a Fifth Amendment takings claim. The federal district court dismissed Mrs. Knick’s action based on the case of Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision which held that property owners must seek just compensation under state law in state court before bringing a federal takings claim under §1983. The Third Circuit affirmed, and Mrs. Knick sought reprieve from the United States Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court, in a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, overturned Williamson, holding that a property owner aggrieved of an inverse condemnation need not first seek compensation in state court; rather, it is the right of a landowner to originally seek relief in the federal courts.
To get to this conclusion, the majority in Knick focused on when a taking occurs. In reviewing Williamson and its progeny, the majority noted that such a holding does not align with the unequivocal language of the Fifth Amendment: “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The majority further noted that the Takings Clause does not say: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without an available procedure that will result in compensation.” Thus, a Fifth Amendment Takings violation occurs the moment the property was acquired without payment, regardless of the availability of post-condemnation remedies. It necessarily follows, then, that a landowner may file first (and only) in federal court to seek appropriate compensation for a taking.
The majority opinion and dissent in Knick spans 25 pages, addressing many complex issues of property law and stare decisis. But while the analysis in Knick is complex in many respects, the takeaway is simple: landowners now have another arrow in their quiver regarding venue to seek compensation for inverse condemnations, and entities with the power of eminent domain are about to get much more familiar with federal court.
The McNees Litigation and Eminent Domain Law Groups regularly represent condemnors and condemnees in condemnation actions and just compensation litigation. For assistance on eminent domain matters, please reach out to Dana Chilson at 717-237-5457 or Kandice Hull at 717-237-5452.
© 2019 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
Litigation News is presented with the understanding that the publisher does not render specific legal, accounting or other professional service to the reader. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, information contained in this publication may become outdated. Anyone using this material must always research original sources of authority and update this information to ensure accuracy and applicability to specific legal matters. In no event will the authors, the reviewers or the publisher be liable for any damage, whether direct, indirect or consequential, claimed to result from the use of this material.