Eminent domain course in San Diego this month
The 29th annual ALI-ABA program on eminent domain will be held this January 26-28th in San Diego. The course promises to be particularly timely this year in light of the recent California Supreme Court decision that effectively ended, for the time being, redevelopment agencies in California.
The impact of the court’s ruling in Community Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos on development projects in California and its likely impact in other states will be analyzed by two prominent California practitioners:
• John Murphy with Murphy & Evertz, LLP of Costa Mesa, and
• Thomas P. Clark, Jr. with Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth of Newport Beach.
The Matosantos ruling is just one of the topics addressed by a national faculty of 30 attorneys, academics, appraisers, and other professionals.
The program offers more than 20 sessions on key issues affecting your practice, including concurrent afternoon sessions on important substantive law topics and practice issues. PLF Director of Litigation James Burling will be addressing the impact of environmental and land use regulations on the fundamentals of property rights.
As in the past, this year’s program will be divided into two concurrent programs: Condemnation 101: Winning the High Ground with Fundamentals of Eminent Domain Valuation and Trial Practice for those seeking an introduction into eminent domain litigation and Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation for more experienced practitioners.
In addition to two and a half days of solid programming and an engaging ethics presentation, the course also offers outstanding networking opportunities, including a reception and dinners for faculty and registrants arranged by our hospitality committee.
I encourage you to attend this preeminent program for eminent domain professionals.
For more information, visit ALI-ABA’s website:
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›