Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Fifth Amendment (4)
- Takings (3)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Constitutional property (2)
- Due process (2)
-
- Eminent domain (2)
- Fifth amendment (2)
- Just Compensation clause (2)
- Supreme Court (2)
- 28 Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (473 U.S. 172 (1985)) (1)
- Economic impact (1)
- Eminent Domain (1)
- Federalism (1)
- First amendment (1)
- Homeowner protection (1)
- Kelo (1)
- Knick v. Township of Scott (1)
- Knick v. Township of Scott (862 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2017)) (1)
- Markle Interests v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (827 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2016)) (1)
- Murr v. Wisconsin (1)
- Public use doctrine (1)
- Regulatory Taking (1)
- Regulatory takings (1)
- Right to free speech (1)
- Ripeness (1)
- State of Indiana v. Tyson Timbs (84 N.E.3d 1179 (Ind. 2017)) (1)
- State takings jurisprudence (1)
- Trump (1)
- United States Constitution 5th Amendment (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Property Law and Real Estate
A Prudential Take On A Prudential Takings Doctrine, Katherine Mims Crocker
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 …
Federalism, Convergence, And Divergence In Constitutional Property, Gerald S. Dickinson
Federalism, Convergence, And Divergence In Constitutional Property, Gerald S. Dickinson
University of Miami Law Review
Federal law exerts a gravitational force on state actors, resulting in widespread conformity to federal law and doctrine at the state level. This has been well recognized in the literature, but scholars have paid little attention to this phenomenon in the context of constitutional property. Traditionally, state takings jurisprudence—in both eminent domain and regulatory takings—has strongly gravitated towards the Supreme Court’s takings doctrine. This long history of federal-state convergence, however, was disrupted by the Court’s controversial public use decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In the wake of Kelo, states resisted the Court’s validation of the …
Section 3: Property Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 3: Property Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Things Invisible To See: State Action & Private Property, Joseph William Singer, Isaac Saidel-Goley
Things Invisible To See: State Action & Private Property, Joseph William Singer, Isaac Saidel-Goley
Texas A&M Law Review
This Article revisits the state action doctrine, a judicial invention that shields “private” or “non-governmental” discrimination from constitutional scrutiny. Traditionally, this doctrine has applied to discrimination even in places of public accommodation, like restaurants, hotels, and grocery stores. Born of overt racial discrimination, the doctrine has inflicted substantial injustice throughout its inglorious history, and courts have continuously struggled in vain to coherently apply the doctrine. Yet, the United States Supreme Court has not fully insulated “private” or “horizontal” relations among persons from constitutional scrutiny. The cases in which it has applied constitutional norms to non-governmental actors should be celebrated rather …
Life In No Trump: Property And Speech Under The Constitution, Richard A. Esptein
Life In No Trump: Property And Speech Under The Constitution, Richard A. Esptein
Maine Law Review
The editors of the Maine Law Review have been kind enough to offer me the opportunity to respond to Laura Underkuffler's criticism of my work in her recent Godfrey Lecture, “When Should Rights ‘Trump’? An Examination of Speech and Property,” which appears in the preceding issue. In my earlier writings on constitutional law, more specifically, in my paper, Property, Speech and the Politics of Distrust, I took the position that modern Supreme Court jurisprudence had taken a turn for the worse insofar as it used different standards of review in passing on the constitutionality of legislation. The current position, roughly …
A Prudential Take On A Prudential Takings Doctrine, Katherine Mims Crocker
A Prudential Take On A Prudential Takings Doctrine, Katherine Mims Crocker
Michigan Law Review Online
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 plaintiffs 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 it …
U.S. Supreme Court Surveys: 2016 Term. Murr. V. Wisconsin: Identifying The Proper "Parcel As A Whole" In Regulatory Takings Cases, Bruce I. Kogan
U.S. Supreme Court Surveys: 2016 Term. Murr. V. Wisconsin: Identifying The Proper "Parcel As A Whole" In Regulatory Takings Cases, Bruce I. Kogan
Law Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Federalism, Convergence, And Divergence In Constitutional Property, Gerald S. Dickinson
Federalism, Convergence, And Divergence In Constitutional Property, Gerald S. Dickinson
Articles
Federal law exerts a gravitational force on state actors, resulting in widespread conformity to federal law and doctrine at the state level. This has been well recognized in the literature, but scholars have paid little attention to this phenomenon in the context of constitutional property. Traditionally, state takings jurisprudence—in both eminent domain and regulatory takings—has strongly gravitated towards the Supreme Court’s takings doctrine. This long history of federal-state convergence, however, was disrupted by the Court’s controversial public use decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In the wake of Kelo, states resisted the Court’s validation of the …
One Parcel Plus One Parcel Equals A "Parcel As A Whole" Murr V. Wisconsin's Fluid Calculations For Regulatory Takings, Shelby D. Green
One Parcel Plus One Parcel Equals A "Parcel As A Whole" Murr V. Wisconsin's Fluid Calculations For Regulatory Takings, Shelby D. Green
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
The Court's most recent major property law case, Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017), tackles one of the thorny, recurring issues in regulatory takings jurisprudence: what is the proper “denominator” to use in determining whether a government regulation has so greatly diminished the economic value of a parcel of land that it effects a taking? More specifically, Murr looked at what constitutes the “parcel as a whole” when a landowner holds title to two contiguous lots. Should a court assess the economic impact on the value of each lot separately or the impact on the value of the …
U.S. Supreme Court Surveys: 2016 Term. Murr. V. Wisconsin: Identifying The Proper "Parcel As A Whole" In Regulatory Takings Cases, Bruce I. Kogan
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.