Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
“Public Use” Or Public Abuse? A New Test For Public Use In Light Of Kelo, Taylor Haines
“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.
Constitutional Limitations On The Ability Of States To Rehabilitate Their Failed Electric Utility Restructuring Plans, James M. Van Nostrand
Constitutional Limitations On The Ability Of States To Rehabilitate Their Failed Electric Utility Restructuring Plans, James M. Van Nostrand
Seattle University Law Review
This Article will review the constitutional limitations that come into play when a state seeks to rehabilitate its failed electric utility restructuring plan. Under the Constitution, utilities are entitled to earn a reasonable return on the assets devoted to public service. A situation in which retail rates are frozen may result in denial of a compensatory return if the electric utility is incurring higher costs to generate or procure its power supply. This is the traditional "takings" argument based on the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, as applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. Apart from this commonly asserted …
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 …
Takings Law, Lucas, And The Growth Management Act, John M. Groen, Richard M. Stephens
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 …