Law | Open Access Articles | Digital Commons Network™

The Lost Takings Test, Josh Eagle

Josh Eagle

In recent decades, the Supreme Court has used oceanfront property as a principal vehicle for the development of Fifth Amendment takings law. Cases alleging that a state government has taken oceanfront land have produced landmark opinions such as Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987), Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), and Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2010).

In each of these cases, the Court has applied its standard, positivist takings analysis: first, identifying the rights of the landowner; then, weighing the extent to which the government’s action has limited those rights. This Article argues …

Go to article

The Evolution Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Changing Interpretations Of The Dmca And Future Implications For Copyright Holders, Hillary A. Henderson

Hillary A Henderson

Copyright law rewards an artificial monopoly to individual authors for their creations. This reward is based on the belief that, by granting authors the exclusive right to reproduce their works, they receive an incentive and means to create, which in turn advances the welfare of the general public by “promoting the progress of science and useful arts.” Copyright protection subsists . . . in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or …

Go to article

Land Use Impact Fees: Does Koontz V. St. Johns River Water Management District Echo An Arkansas Philosophy Of Property Rights?, Carl J. Circo

Carl J. Circo

The takings clause of the Arkansas Constitution declares that “the right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction.” Perhaps such an elevated regard for property is little more than a relic of the post-reconstruction South. But the philosophy seems surprisingly well aligned with a 2013 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District holds that the U.S. Constitution requires heightened scrutiny when a land use authority exacts an impact fee in exchange for a development permit. Koontz arguably reconceives the Court’s attitude toward routine land use regulation, implying a constitutionally favored …

Go to article

Inclusionary Eminent Domain, Gerald S. Dickinson

Gerald S. Dickinson

This article proposes a paradigm shift in takings law, namely “inclusionary eminent domain.” This new normative concept – paradoxical in nature – rethinks eminent domain as an inclusionary land assembly framework that is equipped with multiple tools to help guide municipalities, private developers and communities construct or preserve affordable housing developments. Analogous to inclusionary zoning, inclusionary eminent domain helps us think about how to fix the “exclusionary eminent domain” phenomenon of displacing low-income families by assembling and negotiating the use of land – prior to, during or after condemnation proceedings – to accommodate affordable housing where condemnation threatens to decrease …

Go to article

Law Commons^™

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Lost Takings Test, Josh Eagle

Josh Eagle

The Evolution Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Changing Interpretations Of The Dmca And Future Implications For Copyright Holders, Hillary A. Henderson

Hillary A Henderson

Land Use Impact Fees: Does Koontz V. St. Johns River Water Management District Echo An Arkansas Philosophy Of Property Rights?, Carl J. Circo

Carl J. Circo

Inclusionary Eminent Domain, Gerald S. Dickinson

Gerald S. Dickinson