Law Commons^™

A Prudential Take On A Prudential Takings Doctrine, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court is set to decide a case requesting reconsideration of a doctrine that has long bedeviled constitutional litigants and commentators. The case is Knick v. Township of Scott, and the doctrine is the "ripeness" rule from Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank that plaint~ffs seeking to raise takings claims under the Fifth Amendment must pursue state-created remedies first- the so-called "compensation prong" (as distinguished from a separate "takings prong"). This Essay argues that to put the compensation prong in the best light possible, the Court should view the requirement as a "prudential" rule rather than (as …

An Empirical Study Of Implicit Takings, James E. Krier, Stewart E. Sterk

William & Mary Law Review

Takings scholarship has long focused on the niceties of Supreme Court doctrine, while ignoring the operation of takings law “on the ground”—in the state and lower federal courts, which together decide the vast bulk of all takings cases. This study, based primarily on an empirical analysis of more than 2000 reported decisions over the period 1979 through 2012, attempts to fill that void.

This study establishes that the Supreme Court’s categorical rules govern almost no state takings cases, and that takings claims based on government regulation almost invariably fail. By contrast, when takings claims arise out of government action other …

An Unintended Consequence Of Arkansas Game & Fish Commission V. United States: Expanding Takings Liability To What The Government Doesn’T Do, Jason Kane

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Justifying A Prudential Solution To The Williamson County Ripeness Puzzle, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Theoretical Tension And Doctrinal Discord: Analyzing Development Impact Fees As Takings, Michael B. Kent Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

One of the lingering questions about the law of regulatory takings concerns the proper scope and application of the Supreme Court’s exactions jurisprudence, known as the Nollan/Dolan test. A recurring issue in the case law is the extent to which the Nollan/Dolan framework applies to takings challenges brought against development impact fees. Judicial decisions on the issue split over two primary questions. First, there is a debate about whether Nollan/Dolan is limited to physical exactions or whether the test might also apply to monetary exactions as well. Second, there is a difference of opinion over whether Nollan/Dolan applies only to …

Weighing The Need To Establish Regulatory Takings Doctrine To Justify Takings Standards Of Review And Principles, James E. Holloway, Donald C. Guy

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

This article revisits and examines whether the fairness and justice doctrine of Armstrong v. United States can justify and fashion standards of review to protect the right to just compensation of the Takings Clause. The Court has relied on Armstrong to show the purpose of the Takings Clause in many takings decisions. However, can Armstrong serve a greater purpose? In Dolan v. City of Tigard, the United States Supreme Court applied the unconstitutional conditions doctrine to justify the need for a standard of review to protect the right to just compensation. The Court transported questionable constitutional doctrine to validate Justice …

Impact Of Richard A. Epstein, James W. Ely

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Presented at the 2005 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference.

Taking Stock Of Takings: An Author's Retrospective, Richard A. Epstein

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Presented at the 2005 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference.

Nuance And Complexity In Regulatory Takings Law, Gregory M. Stein

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Presented at the 2004 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference.

The Demise Of Federal Takings Litigation, Stewart E. Sterk

William & Mary Law Review

For more than twenty years the Supreme Court has held that a federal takings claim is not ripe until the claimant seeks compensation in state court. The Court's recent opinion in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco establishes that the federal full faith and credit statute applies to federal takings claims. The Court itself recognized that its decision limits the availability of a federal forum for takings claims. In fact, however, claim preclusion doctrine-not considered or discussed by the Court-may result in more stringent limits on federal court review of takings claims than the Court's …

Making Laws And Sausages: A Quarter-Century Retrospective Of Penn Central Transportation Co. V. City Of New York, Gideon Kanner

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Regulatory Takings And The Original Understanding Of The Takings Clause, Matthew P. Harrington

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Take It Or Leave It: The Supreme Court's Regulatory Takings Jurisprudence After Tahoe-Sierra, Justin W. Stemple

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

The Aftermath Of Sweet Home Chapter: Modification Of Wildlife Habitat As A Prohibited Taking In Violation Of The Endangered Species Act, Steven G. Davison

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

"Un-Locke-Ing" A "Just Right" Environmental Regime: Overcoming The Three Bears Of International Environmentalism - Sovereignty, Locke, And Compensation, Anne C. Dowling

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

When Lochner Met Dolan: The Attempted Transformation Of American Land Use Law By Constitutional Interpretation, Ronald H. Rosenberg, Nancy Stroud

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Enforcing The Endangered Species Act Against The States, Jean O. Melious

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Lucas V. South Carolina Coastal Council And Justice Scalia's Primer On Property Rights: Advancing New Democratic Traditions By Defending The Tradition Of Property, Gregory Daniel Page

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Negotiated Development Denial Meets People's Court: Del Monte Dunes Brings New Wildcards To Exactions Law, Jonathan M. Davidson, Ronald H. Rosenberg, Michael C. Spata

Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court Answered "YES" to the $1.45 million over exaction question for 1999. In City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd., a unanimous court extended the scope of compensatory takings review beyond land dedication conditions into the realm of regulatory denial. Justice Kennedy's opinion vitalized the "legitimate state interests" test from Agins v. City of Tiburon to sustain an inverse condemnation conclusion and damage award to the frustrated developer. A majority of the court also concurred that the trial court may delegate this takings conclusion to the jury under federal civil rights law. The …

The Politics Of Takings: Choosing The Appropriate Decisionmaker, Lynda L. Butler

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Property Rights After Dolan: The Search For The Madisonian Solution To The Regulatory Takings Conundrum, Jeremy Walker

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Achieving The Proper Balance Between The Public And Private Property Interests: Closely Tailored Legislation As A Remedy, Michelle K. Walsh

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

The National Flood Insurance Program: Unattained Purposes, Liability In Contract, And Takings, Charles T. Griffith

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Avoiding Takings “Accidents”: A Torts Perspective On Takings Law, Eric Kades

Faculty Publications

Viewing the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment as a form of insurance appeals to our intuition. The government, like fire, does not often "take" property, but when faced with extraordinary risk property owners naturally desire compensation. Recent scholarship, however, has dissolved the attractiveness of this perspective. This literature, through economic analysis, claims that the Takings Clause should be repealed and replaced with private takings insurance. This is the "no-compensation" result. This article argues that the insurance-based understanding of the just compensation requirement can be preserved without reaching the surprising no-compensation result. The intuitive appeal of understanding the Takings Clause …

Property, Federalism, And Jurisprudence: A Comment On Lucas And Judicial Conservativism, Frank I. Michelman

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.