Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
At Last, Some Clarity: The Potential Long-Term Impact Of Lingle V. Chevron And The Separation Of Takings And Substantive Due Process, Benjamin Barros
At Last, Some Clarity: The Potential Long-Term Impact Of Lingle V. Chevron And The Separation Of Takings And Substantive Due Process, Benjamin Barros
Benjamin Barros
This short essay discusses the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lingle v. Chevron and its potential long-term impact on the Court's regulatory takings doctrine. Lingle involved a narrow (though important) issue of takings law, and on the surface it appears to be a relatively modest case. A deeper look, however, reveals that in its separation of substantive due process and regulatory takings, Lingle has tremendous potential to clarify regulatory takings doctrine. If this potential is fulfilled, Lingle is likely to be far more significant in the long term than Kelo v. City of New London, which has dominated the commentary …
Gone Too Far: Measure 37 And The Perils Of Over-Regulating Land Use, Sara C. Bronin
Gone Too Far: Measure 37 And The Perils Of Over-Regulating Land Use, Sara C. Bronin
Sara C. Bronin
In November 2004, Oregonians passed a ballot measure, Measure 37, that presented a radical remedy for landowners by preventing the state from engaging in regulatory takings without compensating landowners. It required that local governments either monetarily compensate landowners whose properties fall in value as a result of land use regulations or, under certain conditions, exempt those landowners from the regulations altogether. At its core, Measure 37 addressed Oregon voters' concern that - for all the good the land use system had done - the government had gone too far in prohibiting landowners from using their land as they saw fit. …