Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Lucas V. South Carolina Coastal Council: Low Tide For The Takings Clause, Marshall Currey Cook
Lucas V. South Carolina Coastal Council: Low Tide For The Takings Clause, Marshall Currey Cook
Mercer Law Review
In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the United States Supreme Court held that when a state government regulation rendered a landowner's property totally valueless, the landowner must be compensated unless common law nuisance doctrine at the time of the taking prohibited the use forbidden by the regulation. The Supreme Court reversed the South Carolina Supreme Court and remanded the case to determine whether any principles of nuisance and property law existed that prohibited the forbidden use under the statute-the building of an occupiable improvement. This Casenote will only address the court's analysis of the Takings Clause part of …
Goldberg V. Town Of Rocky Hill: Second Circuit Refuses To Extend Absolute Immunity To Municipal Defendant, Nancy J. Bladich
Goldberg V. Town Of Rocky Hill: Second Circuit Refuses To Extend Absolute Immunity To Municipal Defendant, Nancy J. Bladich
Mercer Law Review
In Goldberg v. Town of Rocky Hill, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that municipalities sued under The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, were not entitled to absolute immunity from suit. Kenneth Goldberg brought suit against the town of Rocky Hill, Connecticut ("the town"), its mayor, town manager, and councilmen in their official capacities, claiming he was wrongfully discharged. The town moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) claiming absolute immunity from suit. The district court denied the motion holding that the town was not entitled to absolute immunity. The town then brought …
R.A.V. V. City Of St. Paul: The Right Decision, Flawed Reasoning, Tracy Lynne Hulsey
R.A.V. V. City Of St. Paul: The Right Decision, Flawed Reasoning, Tracy Lynne Hulsey
Mercer Law Review
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the United States Supreme Court struck a St. Paul, Minnesota ordinance prohibiting bias-motivated disorderly conduct, holding that the ordinance was facially invalid under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Police arrested Petitioner R.A.V., then a juvenile, and charged him with violating a city ordinance, which provided:
[w]hoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis …