Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. V. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: The Reemergence Of Penn Central And A Healthy Reluctance To Craft Per Se Regulatory Takings Rules, Philip R. Saucier
Maine Law Review
In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the Supreme Court held that a moratorium on development imposed during the process of devising a comprehensive land use plan did not constitute a per se taking of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution. The scope of Tahoe-Sierra, and thus its ultimate impact on Supreme Court takings jurisprudence, had been severely narrowed and redefined by the courts since the landowners first alleged a taking over fifteen years before the issue was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. It is important to note that this …
Kelo V. City Of New London-Wrongly Decided And A Missed Opportunity For Principled Line Drawing With Respect To Eminent Domain Takings, Orlando E. Delogu
Kelo V. City Of New London-Wrongly Decided And A Missed Opportunity For Principled Line Drawing With Respect To Eminent Domain Takings, Orlando E. Delogu
Maine Law Review
No eminent domain taking case in the last twenty-five years has excited the level of interest, attention, and debate as has Kelo v. City of New London. The Supreme Court’s decision has not quelled that debate. If anything the stridency, the emotional tenor, of the debate has increased. And in the few months since the decision came down, several dozen states (in the absence of any meaningful federal limitation on what constitutes “public use”) have proposed statutes or constitutional amendments that would limit their exercise of eminent domain (taking) powers. There is even talk of federal legislation to temper, to …
A Proposal For Establishing Specialized Federal And State "Takings Courts", John Martinez
A Proposal For Establishing Specialized Federal And State "Takings Courts", John Martinez
Maine Law Review
Takings doctrine is a mess. Let's just accept that and establish specialized federal and state "takings courts" to adjudicate takings claims. Takings claims arise when governmental conduct is alleged to detrimentally affect private property. Adjudication of takings claims may initially seem straightforward: the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause, as well as analogous state constitutional provisions, plainly provide that the government shall not take private property for public use without just compensation. In 1978, the United States Supreme Court confessed that takings analysis is hopelessly ad hoc. Decades later, in 2005, the Court abrogated a test for takings that it had …
Murr V. Wisconsin, Nathan A. Burke
Murr V. Wisconsin, Nathan A. Burke
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Murr v. Wisconsin, the Court redefined how to determine private property for a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment. Previously, courts have primarily relied on state property principles to determine the relevant unit of property for a regulatory takings claim. However, in this case, the Court adopted a three-factor standard to determine the landowner’s reasonable expectations regarding the treatment of their property. By relying on these factors rather than only on state laws, the Court created a litigation-specific definition of property that could potentially differ from state property boundaries. The three-factor standard may also give the government an …
Written Testimony Of Gerald S. Dickinson For The U.S. Senate Hearing On Fencing Along The Southwest Border (Senate Committee On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs), Gerald S. Dickinson
Written Testimony Of Gerald S. Dickinson For The U.S. Senate Hearing On Fencing Along The Southwest Border (Senate Committee On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs), Gerald S. Dickinson
Testimony
It is with great pleasure that I submit this written testimony at the request of the Office of the Ranking Member, Senator McCaskill. I am pleased that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is devoting its April 4, 2017 hearing to an examination of efforts to secure the southwest border through the construction of a wall. Further, as a law professor who writes and teaches in the areas of constitutional property and land use, I take great interest in the committee's focus on the legal authorities related to the wall construction along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Insuring Takings Claims, Christopher Serkin
Insuring Takings Claims, Christopher Serkin
Christopher Serkin
Local governments typically insure themselves against all kinds of losses, from property damage to legal liability. For small- and medium-sized governments, this usually means purchasing insurance from private insurers or participating in municipal risk pools. Insurance for regulatory takings claims, however, is generally unavailable. This previously unnoticed gap in municipal insurance coverage could lead risk averse local governments to underregulate and underenforce existing regulations where property owners threaten to bring takings claims. This seemingly technical observation turns out to have profound implications for theoretical accounts of the Takings Clause that focus on government regulatory incentives. This Article explores the impact …
The Illusion Of Fiscal Illusion In Regulatory Takings, Bethany R. Berger
The Illusion Of Fiscal Illusion In Regulatory Takings, Bethany R. Berger
American University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Public Stand-Off: The Wisconsin State Legislature V. Milwaukee Public Schools And Takings Of Public Property By Public Entities, Corey R. Hoze
Public Stand-Off: The Wisconsin State Legislature V. Milwaukee Public Schools And Takings Of Public Property By Public Entities, Corey R. Hoze
Mitchell Hamline Law Review
No abstract provided.
Owning And Dissolving Strata Property, Douglas C. Harris
Owning And Dissolving Strata Property, Douglas C. Harris
All Faculty Publications
Strata or condominium property creates multiple privately owned lots or units within an association of owners. Dissolving strata property involves winding-up the association and terminating the private interests. As a result, the non-consensual dissolution of strata property involves the taking of property from those owners who oppose dissolution. The owners of individual lots become co-owners of the land formerly within the association, but the non-consenting owners have their property interests in separate lots taken from them. Beginning with the observation that non-consensual dissolution of strata property results in a taking of property, this article analyzes British Columbia’s move to facilitate …
Partial Takings, Abraham Bell, Gideon Parchomovsky
Partial Takings, Abraham Bell, Gideon Parchomovsky
All Faculty Scholarship
Partial takings allow the government to expropriate the parts of an asset it needs, leaving the owner the remainder. Both vital and common, partial takings present unique challenges to the standard rules of eminent domain. Partial takings may result in the creation of suboptimal, and even unusable, parcels. Additionally, partial takings create assessment problems that do not arise when parcels are taken as a whole. Finally, partial takings engender opportunities for inefficient strategic behavior on the part of the government after the partial taking has been carried out. Current jurisprudence fails to resolve these problems and can even exacerbate them. …
A Hobbesian Bundle Of Lockean Sticks: The Property Rights Legacy Of Justice Scalia, J. Peter Byrne
A Hobbesian Bundle Of Lockean Sticks: The Property Rights Legacy Of Justice Scalia, J. Peter Byrne
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
No modern United States Supreme Court Justice has stimulated more thought and debate about the constitutional meaning of property than Antonin Scalia. This essay evaluates his efforts to change the prevailing interpretation of the Takings Clause. Scalia sought to ground it in clear rules embodying a reactionary defense of private owners’ prerogatives against environmental and land use regulation. Ultimately, Scalia aimed to authorize federal judicial oversight of state property law developments, whether through legislative or judicial innovation. In hindsight, he stands in a long tradition of conservative judges using property law as a constitutional baseline by which to restrain regulation.