Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 27 of 27

Full-Text Articles in Law

Takings In Disguise: The Inequity Of Public Nuisance Receiverships In America’S Rust Belt, Anna Kennedy Oct 2023

Takings In Disguise: The Inequity Of Public Nuisance Receiverships In America’S Rust Belt, Anna Kennedy

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

Since they were created in the 1980s in Cleveland, Ohio, public nuisance receiverships have spread across the American Rust Belt. This Note critically analyzes the legal implications of public nuisance receiverships, which involve the intrusion onto private property for public purposes. Despite claims that these actions align with exceptions to due process or public nuisance principles, a deeper examination reveals their fundamental nature as government takings of private property. This Note dissects the legal framework within the context of the Fifth Amendment, debunking the applicability of the public nuisance exception, establishing that receiverships constitute takings, and highlighting conflicts with Anti-Kelo …


Preview — Denezpi V. United States (2022). Double Jeopardy In Indian Country, Paul A. Hutton Iii Feb 2022

Preview — Denezpi V. United States (2022). Double Jeopardy In Indian Country, Paul A. Hutton Iii

Public Land & Resources Law Review

On February 22, the Supreme Court of the United States will decide the single issue of whether a Court of Indian Offenses constitutes a federal entity and, therefore, separate prosecutions in federal district court and a Court of Indian Offenses for the same act violates the Double Jeopardy Clause as prosecutions for the same offense.


“Public Use” Or Public Abuse? A New Test For Public Use In Light Of Kelo, Taylor Haines Oct 2020

“Public Use” Or Public Abuse? A New Test For Public Use In Light Of Kelo, Taylor Haines

Seattle University Law Review

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment has long been controversial. It allows the government to take private property for the purpose of “public use.” But what does public use mean? The definition is one of judicial interpretation. It has evolved from the original meaning intended by the drafters of the Constitution. Now, the meaning is extremely broad. This Note argues that both the original and contemporary meaning of public use are problematic. It explores the issues with both definitions and suggests a new test, solidified in legislation instead of judicial interpretation.


Knick V. Township Of Scott, Alizabeth A. Bronsdon Oct 2019

Knick V. Township Of Scott, Alizabeth A. Bronsdon

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Supreme Court overruled a 34-year-old precedent and sparked a sharp dissent by holding that a landowner impacted by a local ordinance requiring public access to an unofficial cemetery on her property could bring a takings claim directly in federal court. The decision eliminated a Catch-22 state-litigation requirement that effectively barred local takings plaintiffs from federal court, but raised concerns about government land use and regulation, judicial federalism, and the role of stare decisis.


President Trump's Big Beautiful Wall: Discrimination, Eminent Domain, And The Public Use Requirement, Meghan K. Tierney Feb 2019

President Trump's Big Beautiful Wall: Discrimination, Eminent Domain, And The Public Use Requirement, Meghan K. Tierney

Chicago-Kent Law Review

At a press conference held in Trump Tower New York City on June 16, 2015, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President of the United States by promising to expand the border wall along the Southern United States. President Trump has insisted that his only reasons behind completely separating the United States from Mexico are to curtail illegal immigration and curb drug cartel activity, but many argue that his statements indicate a much more sinister motive based in racial discrimination. The public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause allows the federal government to take private land for the …


Martin V. United States, Mitch L. Werbell V Dec 2018

Martin V. United States, Mitch L. Werbell V

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Martin v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings and exaction claim for want of ripeness when the claimant failed to apply for a permit, which would have allowed for an assessment of the cost of compliance with governmentally imposed requirements. By finding the claim unripe, the court stood firm on the historical view that federal courts may only adjudicate land-use regulatory takings and inverse condemnation claims on the merits after a regulating entity has made a final decision. However, jurisprudential evolution of the ripeness doctrine and judicial review of takings claims may …


U.S. Supreme Court Surveys: 2016 Term. Murr. V. Wisconsin: Identifying The Proper "Parcel As A Whole" In Regulatory Takings Cases, Bruce I. Kogan Jan 2018

U.S. Supreme Court Surveys: 2016 Term. Murr. V. Wisconsin: Identifying The Proper "Parcel As A Whole" In Regulatory Takings Cases, Bruce I. Kogan

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.


Taking The Oceanfront Lot, Josh Eagle Apr 2016

Taking The Oceanfront Lot, Josh Eagle

Indiana Law Journal

Oceanfront landowners and states share a property boundary that runs between the wet and dry parts of the shore. This legal coastline is different from an ordinary land boundary. First, on sandy beaches, the line is constantly in flux, and it cannot be marked except momentarily. Without the help of a surveyor and a court, neither the landowner nor a citizen walking down the beach has the ability to know exactly where the line lies. This uncertainty means that, as a practical matter, ownership of some part of the beach is effectively shared. Second, the common law establishes that the …


Public Access Vs. Private Property: The Struggle Of Coastal Landowners To Keep The Public Off Their Land, James D. Donahue Jan 2016

Public Access Vs. Private Property: The Struggle Of Coastal Landowners To Keep The Public Off Their Land, James D. Donahue

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.


Takings Cases In The October 2004 Term, Leon D. Lazer Dec 2014

Takings Cases In The October 2004 Term, Leon D. Lazer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Categorical Lucas Rule And The Nuisance And Background Principles Exception, Carol Necole Brown Jun 2014

The Categorical Lucas Rule And The Nuisance And Background Principles Exception, Carol Necole Brown

Touro Law Review

This article examines the seminal 1992 United States Supreme Court decision, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, specifically focusing on the Lucas nuisance exception. The author surveyed approximately 1,600 reported regulatory takings cases decided since the Lucas decision involving Lucas takings challenges. The author further identified the statutory nuisance cases in which state and local governments unsuccessfully asserted the Lucas nuisance exception as a defense to the courts’ findings of a Lucas taking. This article examines the prospective potential of these cases for assisting private property owners in enhancing private property rights protections within the area of regulatory takings.


Agins V. City Of Tiburon: Open Space Zoning Prevails - Failure To Submit Master Plan Prevents A Cognizable Decrease In Property Value, Jermaine Chastain Feb 2013

Agins V. City Of Tiburon: Open Space Zoning Prevails - Failure To Submit Master Plan Prevents A Cognizable Decrease In Property Value, Jermaine Chastain

Pepperdine Law Review

This casenote examines the Supreme Court's struggle to reconcile its focus on the facial validity of a zoning ordinance with the traditional "taking" approach requiring diligent factual inquiry. While the Agins Court reiterates such an approach, the author notes the Court's departure from important constitutional and precedential considerations. The author offers a possible explanation for the departure, concluding that the Agins decision apparently makes plan submission a prerequisite for acknowledging economic loss and strongly implies a requirement of complete loss of all property value before a compensable taking will be recognized.


The Abnormalcy Of Normal Delay, Kimberly Horsley Jul 2012

The Abnormalcy Of Normal Delay, Kimberly Horsley

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Planning Ahead: Consistency With A Comprehensive Land Use Plan Yields Consistent Results For Municipalities, Nathan Blackburn Jan 2007

Planning Ahead: Consistency With A Comprehensive Land Use Plan Yields Consistent Results For Municipalities, Nathan Blackburn

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.


Camping In Lake Tahoe: Does A Temporary Deprivation Of All Beneficial Use Of Land Justify Rejection Of The Categorical Lucas Rule?, Akke Levin Jan 2004

Camping In Lake Tahoe: Does A Temporary Deprivation Of All Beneficial Use Of Land Justify Rejection Of The Categorical Lucas Rule?, Akke Levin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.


Determining Ripeness Of Substantive Due Process Claims Brought By Landowners Against Local Governments, David S. Mendel Nov 1996

Determining Ripeness Of Substantive Due Process Claims Brought By Landowners Against Local Governments, David S. Mendel

Michigan Law Review

Landowners who sustain economic harm from arbitrary and capricious applications of land use regulations may sue the local government entities responsible for applying those regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the local government entities deprived them of substantive due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. A landowner who brings this claim - an "as-applied arbitrary and capricious substantive due process" claim - may in appropriate cases seek declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney's fees. Despite controversy among courts and commentators over both the definition of property interests protected by the Due Process Clause and the standard …


Arbitrary And Confiscatory Rezoning By New York State Local Governments: An Exercise Of Police Powers Or Discrimination?, George Likourezos Jan 1995

Arbitrary And Confiscatory Rezoning By New York State Local Governments: An Exercise Of Police Powers Or Discrimination?, George Likourezos

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Takings Law, Lucas, And The Growth Management Act, John M. Groen, Richard M. Stephens Jan 1993

Takings Law, Lucas, And The Growth Management Act, John M. Groen, Richard M. Stephens

Seattle University Law Review

In light of Lucas and the recent constitutionally questionable Washington decisions, government entities charged with implementing the GMA may have a more difficult time avoiding takings liability than previously thought. Accordingly, this Article first seeks to clarify the modern takings analysis as refined by Lucas. Second, Washington takings precedent is contrasted with the federal approach and several key changes are suggested to make state law consistent with controlling federal precedent. Third, key aspects of the GMA are identified that can be expected to raise takings implications. By identifying potential trouble spots in the GMA now, hopefully some takings will …


Dashed "Investment-Backed" Expectations: Will The Constitution Protect Property Owners From Excesses In Implementation Of The Growth Management Act?, Elaine Spencer Jan 1993

Dashed "Investment-Backed" Expectations: Will The Constitution Protect Property Owners From Excesses In Implementation Of The Growth Management Act?, Elaine Spencer

Seattle University Law Review

Section I briefly discusses the basic principles of takings law as enunciated by prior cases, as well as the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, and the Washington Supreme Court's recent decisions in Sintra, Inc. v. Seattle and Robinson v. Seattle. Although the Lucas decision has received considerable publicity, it advanced the state of the law rather little. The real guidance for future decisions arising out of the GMA will come from earlier United States Supreme Court decisions and the Washington Supreme Court's decisions in Sintra, Robinson, and Lutheran …


The Legislature's Role In The Taking Issue, Mitchell B. Haigler, Mary M. Mcinerny, Robert M. Rhodes Jan 1976

The Legislature's Role In The Taking Issue, Mitchell B. Haigler, Mary M. Mcinerny, Robert M. Rhodes

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.


Purely Economic Justifications Sufficient To Permit Exercise Of Federal Eminent Domain Power--United States V. Certain Parcels Of Land, Michigan Law Review Jan 1965

Purely Economic Justifications Sufficient To Permit Exercise Of Federal Eminent Domain Power--United States V. Certain Parcels Of Land, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The federal government, pursuant to authorizing statutes, sought to condemn defendant's land, alleging that it was needed as a source of fill for a section of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Defendant offered proof demonstrating that commercial fill could easily be purchased within the immediate area, that it was therefore not necessary for the government to condemn any land in order to complete the construction of the highway, and that his land was zoned "light industrial" and was thus ideally suited for future development. Employing the usual stringent proof requirements, the court granted the government's motion for …


Constitutional Law-Eminent Domain-Master Flight Plan As A Taking Of Land Under Approach Area To Municipal Airport, Ralph L. Wright S. Ed Nov 1961

Constitutional Law-Eminent Domain-Master Flight Plan As A Taking Of Land Under Approach Area To Municipal Airport, Ralph L. Wright S. Ed

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff owned land adjacent to the Greater Pittsburgh Airport which lay under an approach area for one of the runways. Allegheny County, in compliance with rules and regulations of the Civil Aeronautics Authority, drafted a "Master Plan," approved by the CAA, which showed the approach area over part of plaintiff's property. Plaintiff sued to recover damages from the county, owner and operator of the airport, alleging an appropriation of his land because of the substantial interference with its use and enjoyment caused by flights at low altitudes above his land during landings and take-offs. Upon an award of damages by …


Landowners' Rights In The Air Age: The Airport Dilemma, William B. Harvey Jun 1958

Landowners' Rights In The Air Age: The Airport Dilemma, William B. Harvey

Michigan Law Review

If Lord Tennyson had been a student of the common law, he might well have qualified his poetic foresight of "the heavens fill[ed] with commerce" by some cautious reference to the complaints of landowners below against the "pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales." The result doubtless would have been poorer poetry but a far more accurate forecast of the problems to confront mid-20th century lawyers. Although the phenomenal growth of civil aviation since the first World War has opened up a host of difficulties, the only ones of concern in this article are those presenting the …


Constitutional Law - Eminent Domain - Condemnation Of Riparian Lands Under The Commerce Power, George F. Lynch S.Ed. Dec 1956

Constitutional Law - Eminent Domain - Condemnation Of Riparian Lands Under The Commerce Power, George F. Lynch S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The power of the United States to regulate commerce comprehends a right to control navigation and the means of navigation. To the extent necessary for the enjoyment of this power the government may condemn riparian property. The federal power of eminent domain is limited by the mandate of the Fifth Amendment which requires just compensation for private property taken for a public use. Usually, the standard of just compensation is the market value of the property, taking into consideration the most profitable uses for which the property is suited and likely to be used at the time of the taking, …


Constitutional Law - Public Use Requirement And The Power Of Eminent Domain, Donald F. Oosterhouse S.Ed. Apr 1955

Constitutional Law - Public Use Requirement And The Power Of Eminent Domain, Donald F. Oosterhouse S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Under the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act, an agency was created to redevelop blighted and slum areas. Pursuant to the mode of operation prescribed in the statute, the agency intended to purchase or take by eminent domain all the property in the vicinity of appellant's property. After getting title to all the property the agency was to lease or sell it to private enterprisers to redevelop the area according to the agency's comprehensive plan, which specified definite boundaries for various uses. Appellant brought this action to enjoin the condemnation of his business property, claiming that the statute was unconstitutional because …


Eminent Domain - Public Housing And Slum Clearance As A "Public Use", Wayne E. Babler Dec 1937

Eminent Domain - Public Housing And Slum Clearance As A "Public Use", Wayne E. Babler

Michigan Law Review

The recent legislation providing for housing and slum clearance raises the interesting and practical problem of whether a taking of land for such housing and slum clearance purposes by means of an eminent domain proceeding is condemnation for a "public use," within the meaning of that term in eminent domain proceedings. Such a taking was held to be for a public use in the recent case of Spahn v. Stewart.


Constitutional Law - Eminent Domain - Power Of Federal Government To Condemn Land For Slum Clearance Project Apr 1935

Constitutional Law - Eminent Domain - Power Of Federal Government To Condemn Land For Slum Clearance Project

Michigan Law Review

In proceedings by the United States government to condemn certain lands in the city of Louisville for the purpose of a slum clearance and low cost housing project, several property owners demurred to the condemnation petitions as being beyond the constitutional powers of the federal government. Although the United States contended that the property was being taken for a public use, in the sense of general public advantage, and that the project was a valid expenditure of public funds for the general welfare, it was held that this condemnation was not within the power of the federal government. United States …