Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
U.S. Supreme Court’S 2004 Term Includes Significant Land Use Decisions With A Trilogy Of Takings Cases, Patricia E. Salkin
U.S. Supreme Court’S 2004 Term Includes Significant Land Use Decisions With A Trilogy Of Takings Cases, Patricia E. Salkin
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Bargaining For Takings Compensation, Abraham Bell, Gideon Parchomovsky
Bargaining For Takings Compensation, Abraham Bell, Gideon Parchomovsky
All Faculty Scholarship
Efficiency and fairness require paying full compensation to property owners when their property is taken by eminent domain. Yet, to date, the evidentiary challenge of proving subjective value has proved insurmountable, and current law requires condemnees to settle for fair market value. This Article proposes a self-assessment mechanism that can make full compensation at subjective value practical. Under our proposal, property owners must be given the opportunity to state the value of the property designated for condemnation. Once property owners name their price, the government can take the property only at that price. However, if the government chooses not to …
Michigan Supreme Court Overturns Landmark Eminent Domain Case, Patricia E. Salkin
Michigan Supreme Court Overturns Landmark Eminent Domain Case, Patricia E. Salkin
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
The Rhetorics Of Taking Cases: It's Mine V. Let's Share, Susan Ayres
The Rhetorics Of Taking Cases: It's Mine V. Let's Share, Susan Ayres
Faculty Scholarship
Regulatory takings cases originated in 1922 when Justice Holmes, in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, ruled that "while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." This simple rule has resulted in over eighty years of case law that Carol Rose states has left takings law to "muddle along." While many legal scholars decry the incoherence and inconsistency of takings case law, this article provides a rhetorical analysis that explains the "muddle" as a result of rhetorical tensions between a Sophistic approach ("Let's Share") and an Aristotelian …
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. …