About this episode
Two cases, from the Fourth and Sixth Circuits, came out within just a few days of each other, and each was about a city tearing a house down. And whether that was OK. They came to different conclusions, partly because one seemed to have been litigated a bit better, but also for other reasons we discuss. First, IJ’s Christian Lansinger describes a Virginia property that wasn’t in great shape, but also where the officials didn’t act quite right before they tore it down for being a nuisance. Unfortunately, the owner sued too late for the court to address most of his claims. In Kentucky, on the other hand, the owner sued in time after being told he couldn’t appeal to the city’s property review board because although it’s mentioned in the city code, city officials told him it didn’t exist. The court was not impressed by this and allowed the case to move forward. Joe Gay of IJ brings this matter to our attention, along with an interesting concurrence about how our property rights have suffered from a slow boil.
RSVP for our 10th Anniversary Party and Show on April 3d in DC!
D.A. Realestate Investment v. City of Norfolk
Get every episode summarized
Each time Short Circuit publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
Hosts & guests
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
More from Short Circuit
Short Circuit 445 | Crazytown
Short Circuit
Short Circuit 444 | Recording the Police with Facebook Immunity
Short Circuit
Short Circuit 443 | Irreparable Speech Harms
Short Circuit
Short Circuit 442 | Free Speech Died Here, Ask Me How
Short Circuit