Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Rising Tides--Changing Title: Court To Mull Takings Issue, John R. Nolon
Rising Tides--Changing Title: Court To Mull Takings Issue, John R. Nolon
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Walton County v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc., where novel questions arose concerning sea level rise and constitutional property rights of beachfront landowners. In Florida, the state government owns in trust, all beach property below the mean high tide water line, while beachfront landowners own the rights to any land above the mean high tide water line. The line shifts along with beachfront as the beach expands and contracts. In this Florida case, landowners challenge a state statute, which precludes the ocean property line from shifting in favor of the private …
Fallout From Kelo: Ruling Spurs Legislative Proposals To Limit Takings, John R. Nolon, Jessica A. Bacher
Fallout From Kelo: Ruling Spurs Legislative Proposals To Limit Takings, John R. Nolon, Jessica A. Bacher
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
The 2005 Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London has galvanized much unwarranted controversy over governmental authority to condemn private property. A legislative reaction throughout the country has focused on limiting governmental condemnation authority in order to encourage economic development. This article discusses some of the specific pros and cons of reactionary legislation by both the federal and New York legislature.
Despite Alarmists, 'Kelo' Decision Protects Property Owners And Serves The General Good, John R. Nolon, Jessica A. Bacher
Despite Alarmists, 'Kelo' Decision Protects Property Owners And Serves The General Good, John R. Nolon, Jessica A. Bacher
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, has spurred national debate, as many people portray the court’s decision as a damaging blow to private property rights. In Kelo, the court confirmed local government’s ability to condemn property in an area designated as blighted by the state, in order to encourage economic development. This article highlights several positive examples of this sort of condemnation in New York case law, where the public interest was served by economic redevelopment. The article goes further, to distinguish several legal decisions from Kelo, where courts invalidated condemnations upon a …
'Takings' Clarified: U.S. Supreme Court Provides Clear Direction, John R. Nolon, Jessica A. Bacher
'Takings' Clarified: U.S. Supreme Court Provides Clear Direction, John R. Nolon, Jessica A. Bacher
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
The United States Supreme Court holding in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. clarified years of takings jurisprudence and overturned a controversial decision in the case of Agins v. City of Tiburon. This article discusses how the Lingle court denounced the “substantially advances” test created in Agins, as a due process inquiry rather than a proper takings test. The Lingle court instead opted to create a clear four-category paradigm for takings cases, which focuses on the burden the government places on private property rights in order to distinguish takings categories.
Court Reviews: The Takings Doctrine And Exactions, John R. Nolon, Jessica A. Bacher
Court Reviews: The Takings Doctrine And Exactions, John R. Nolon, Jessica A. Bacher
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
Exactions occur when applications to develop parcels of land require governmental permission, and that permission is conditioned upon dedicating part of the land to public use. Exactions have long been challenged as regulatory takings, and both federal and state courts look at these types of regulations with a heightened level of scrutiny due to the nature of exactions to remove a crucial element from the bundle of property rights associated with ownership of real property: the right to exclude. This column discusses a recent example of exactions jurisprudence applied in New York and goes on to compare that decision in …
Exacting Tests: Determining When A Taking Is Unconstitutional, John R. Nolon, Jessica A. Bacher
Exacting Tests: Determining When A Taking Is Unconstitutional, John R. Nolon, Jessica A. Bacher
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
In the past, courts generally deferred to legislatures when determining whether a law constitutes a regulatory taking. However, not all regulations are treated equal, and different tests apply to different types of regulations. Types of land use actions with a lower threshold of constitutionally include exactions, and regulations that apply fixed fee schedules to private landowners. This article combs both federal and New York law to come to the clear determination that universal standards exist for each type of regulation.
Supreme Court Takes A Look At Takings, John R. Nolon
Supreme Court Takes A Look At Takings, John R. Nolon
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
In the case of Pazzalo v. Rhode Island the United States Supreme Court reversed a determination by the Rhode Island Supreme Court which held that land owners had no right to sue for a regulatory taking if the land owners purchased title to land on which a preexisting restriction existed. Before this case, the rule in New York also precluded landowners from challenging land use regulations that existed at the time they purchased land. After holding that a regulatory takings challenge existed, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to Rhode Island to decide whether the preexisting regulations affected the …