Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Dawn Of A Judicial Takings Doctrine: Stop The Beach Renourishment, Inc. V. Florida Department Of Environmental Protection, Brendan Mackesey
The Dawn Of A Judicial Takings Doctrine: Stop The Beach Renourishment, Inc. V. Florida Department Of Environmental Protection, Brendan Mackesey
University of Miami Law Review
In Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 130 S. Ct. 2592 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Florida Supreme Court had violated a group of littoral property owners’ Fifth Amendment rights—or committed a “judicial taking”—by upholding the state of Florida’s Beach and Shore Preservation Act. Under the Act, the State is entitled to ownership of previously submerged land it restores as beach; this is true even though the normal private/state property line, the mean-high water line, is moved seaward, and the affected littoral owner(s) lose their right to have their property …
Pipe(Line) Dreams Post-Denbury Green., Nicholas Laurent, Christopher Oddo
Pipe(Line) Dreams Post-Denbury Green., Nicholas Laurent, Christopher Oddo
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC v. Texas Rice Land Partners, the Beaumont Court of Appeals articulated the test that should be applied when considering whether the condemnation of private property, which would result favorably for pipeline companies, should be allowed. In Denbury, the Beaumont Court of Appeals balanced the protection of private property rights against the need for true common carrier pipeline companies to condemn private property. The court held that in order to condemn private property, a substantial public interest must exist to justify such condemnation. The Texas Supreme Court, however, reversed the decision of the Beaumont Court of …
Nollan V. California Coastal Commission: You Can't Always Get What You Want, But Sometimes You Get What You Need, Timothy A. Bittle
Nollan V. California Coastal Commission: You Can't Always Get What You Want, But Sometimes You Get What You Need, Timothy A. Bittle
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Residential Protectionism And The Legal Mythology Of Home, Stephanie M. Stern
Residential Protectionism And The Legal Mythology Of Home, Stephanie M. Stern
Michigan Law Review
The theory that one's home is a psychologically special form of property has become a cherished principle of property law, cited by legislators and touted extensively in the legal scholarship. Influential scholars, most notably Margaret Radin, have asserted that ongoing control over one's home is necessary for an individual's very personhood and ability to flourish in society. Other commentators have expounded a communitarian vision of the home as rooting individuals in communities of close-knit social ties. Remarkably, the legal academy has accepted these theoretical accounts of the home without demanding a shred of empirical evidence. The misplaced belief in the …
Property And Relative Status, Nestor M. Davidson
Property And Relative Status, Nestor M. Davidson
Michigan Law Review
Property does many things-it incentivizes productive activity, facilitates exchange, forms an integral part of individual identity, and shapes communities. But property does something equally fundamental: it communicates. And perhaps the most ubiquitous and important messages that property communicates have to do with relative status, with the material world defining and reinforcing a variety of economic, social, and cultural hierarchies. This status-signalingf unction of property-withp roperty serving as an important locus for symbolic meaning through which people compare themselves to others-complicates premises underlying central discourses in contemporary property theory. In particular, status signaling can skew property's incentive and allocative benefits, leading …
Restricting Kelo: Will Redefining Blight In Senate Bill 7 Be The Light At The End Of The Tunnel., Adrianne Archer
Restricting Kelo: Will Redefining Blight In Senate Bill 7 Be The Light At The End Of The Tunnel., Adrianne Archer
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Kelo v. City of New London, the United States Supreme Court extended the public use limitation to its most expansive definition yet. The Kelo decision enhanced the Fifth Amendment takings power by allowing the city of New London, Connecticut, to exercise eminent domain power in furtherance of an economic development plan. Notably, the city’s revitalization plan did not include a claim that the area subject to eminent domain was “blighted.” The Fifth Amendment provides that governments may wield the power of eminent domain and take private property for public use but only with just compensation. Generally, private property can …
The Unable To Agree Requirement And Texas Condemnation Law: A Critical Analysis Of Hubenak V. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co.., B. Tyler Milton
The Unable To Agree Requirement And Texas Condemnation Law: A Critical Analysis Of Hubenak V. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co.., B. Tyler Milton
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Texas, the state constitution requires adequate compensation as a predicate to a taking of private property for a public use. Though an eminent domain cause of action has both a constitutional and statutory basis, the requirement of adequate or just compensation is premised on principles of natural equity and justice. Texas statutorily mandates that a condemner of land must, prior to the institution of a condemnation proceeding, plead and prove the two parties were “unable to agree” on the corresponding compensation due to the landowner. Texas courts interpreted this requirement in the condemnation statute to compel “good faith negotiations” …
Mind The Gap: Expansion Of Texas Governmental Immunity Between Takings And Tort., Jadd F. Masso
Mind The Gap: Expansion Of Texas Governmental Immunity Between Takings And Tort., Jadd F. Masso
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Jennings v. City of Dallas, the city’s wastewater collection division was dispatched to unstop a clogged sewer main but instead caused sewage to spew into the Jennings’ home with dramatic force, causing extensive damage. The Jennings subsequently filed suit against the city, alleging its actions constituted an unconstitutional taking, damaging, or destruction of their property for public use without adequate compensation in violation of Article I, § 17 of the Texas Constitution. The issue presented from the case was whether an individual citizen should be liable for such losses when the damage—as an incident to governmental action—in effect benefits …
Kelo V. City Of New London, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District V. United States, And Washoe County V. United States: A Fifth Amendment Takings Primer., Christopher L. Harris, Daniel J. Lowenberg
Kelo V. City Of New London, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District V. United States, And Washoe County V. United States: A Fifth Amendment Takings Primer., Christopher L. Harris, Daniel J. Lowenberg
St. Mary's Law Journal
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is a remedy available to citizens for the government's undue interference with private property rights. It operates similarly to an affirmative defense as it entitles citizens to “just compensation” when the government “takes” private property for “public use.” The Takings Clause thus embodies the idea that society values the protection of private property. The Supreme Court of the United States stated the purpose of the Takings Clause is “to bar Government from forcing citizens from bearing public burdens which, in all fairness, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Kelo v. …
Texas Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act: A Political Solution To The Regulatory Takings Problem Comment., George E. Grimes Jr.
Texas Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act: A Political Solution To The Regulatory Takings Problem Comment., George E. Grimes Jr.
St. Mary's Law Journal
Increasing environmental regulation has resulted in an antiregulation backlash and the growth of a property rights movement. Unable to successfully use the courts to protect private property from diminution in value due to government regulations, property rights advocates have looked to the federal and state legislatures for assistance. This has led to some states and the United States Congress to introduce private property rights protection. This protection generally takes one of two forms. The first requires the government to assess the possible effect on property rights before enacting regulations. The second requires the government to compensate property owners for the …