Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Takings (2)
- Adjacent (1)
- Climate change (1)
- Detroit (1)
- Eminent domain (1)
-
- Environmental law (1)
- Environmental management (1)
- Environmental policy (1)
- Global warming (1)
- Government policy (1)
- Great lakes (1)
- Indian law (1)
- John Paul Stevens (1)
- Land owners (1)
- Land use (1)
- Land use regulation (1)
- Littoral owners (1)
- Massachusetts v. EPA (1)
- Native american law (1)
- Property rights (1)
- Protected public uses (1)
- Public purpose doctrine (1)
- Public trust doctrine (1)
- Public use (1)
- Sovereignty (1)
- Standing (1)
- State law (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Justice John Paul Stevens - His Take On Takings, Alan C. Weinstein
Justice John Paul Stevens - His Take On Takings, Alan C. Weinstein
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
This commentary reviews and analyzes Justice John Paul Stevens's role in shaping the Court's views on the takings issue in land use regulation.
Equal Standing With States: Tribal Sovereignty And Standing After Massachusetts V. Epa, Joseph Mead, Nicholas Fromherz
Equal Standing With States: Tribal Sovereignty And Standing After Massachusetts V. Epa, Joseph Mead, Nicholas Fromherz
All Maxine Goodman Levin School of Urban Affairs Publications
In Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court held that Massachusetts was entitled to "special solicitude" in the standing analysis because it was sovereign. As a result, Massachusetts passed the standing threshold in a global warming case where an ordinary litigant may have been stymied. The Supreme Court’s analysis raises an interesting question: Are Indian tribes—which have been considered sovereign entities since before the founding, and which hold lands facing heavy environmental pressure—entitled to "special solicitude" as well? We think they should be.
To make this argument, we begin by discussing standing basics; dissecting Massachusetts v. …
The Wholesale Decommissioning Of Vacant Urban Neighborhoods: Smart Decline, Public-Purpose Takings, And The Legality Of Shrinking Cities, Ben Beckman
Cleveland State Law Review
This Note is principally concerned with those takings that arise from the State's exercise of eminent domain, either directly or through the State's designee. To put a finer point on it, this Note addresses the distinction that property-rights advocates have developed to delegitimize certain types of takings. This distinction divides condemnations into disfavored-yet-legitimate takings-the direct-government-use and common-carrier takings-and ostensibly illegitimate public-purpose takings. The property-rights movement unequivocally places economic-development takings in the illegitimate category. The status of blight-remediation takings is ambiguous but tends toward legitimacy.
The Public Trust Doctrine And The Great Lakes Shores, Kenneth K. Kilbert
The Public Trust Doctrine And The Great Lakes Shores, Kenneth K. Kilbert
Cleveland State Law Review
The shores of the Great Lakes may look serene, but they are a battleground. Members of the public enjoy using the shores for fishing, boating, birding, or simply strolling along and taking in the scenic vistas. Repeatedly, however, owners of land ordering the Great Lakes (i.e., littoral owners),' armed with deeds indicating they own the shore to the water's edge or even lower, have tried to stop members of the public from using their property above the water's edge. The right to exclude others from your property, the littoral owners argue, is one of the most important sticks in the …