Law Commons^™

If They Can Raze It, Why Can't I? A Constitutional Analysis Of Statutory And Judicial Religious Exemptions To Historic Preservation Ordinances, Erin Guiffre

Georgetown Law Historic Preservation Papers Series

In 1996, America almost lost a great piece of its history. The Cathedral of Saint Vibiana, located in Los Angeles, was in danger of being destroyed. The "Baroque-inspired Italianate structure" was completed in 1876 by architect Ezra F. Kysor. The cathedral is one of only a few structures from Los Angeles' early history remaining. As an important part of history and a beautiful piece of architecture, the cathedral was listed on California's register of historic places. In 1994, an earthquake damaged part of the building. After an inspection by the building and safety department in 1996, the only portion of …

Jutstice Kennedy And The Environment: Property, States' Rights, And The Search For Nexus, Michael Blumm

ExpressO

Justice Anthony Kennedy, now clearly the pivot of the Roberts Court, is the Court’s crucial voice in environmental and natural resources law cases. Kennedy’s central role was never more evident than in the two most celebrated environmental and natural resources law cases of 2006: Kelo v. New London and Rapanos v. U.S., since he supplied the critical vote in both: upholding local use of the condemnation power for economic development under certain circumstances, and affirming federal regulatory authority over wetlands which have a significant nexus to navigable waters. In each case Kennedy’s sole concurrence was outcome determinative.

Justice Kennedy has …

Sign Amortization Laws: Insight Into Precedent, Property, And Public Policy, Stephen Durden

Stephen Durden

This Article will (1) briefly overview Takings Clause jurisprudence; (2) state a paradigmatic fact pattern; (3) review how the Takings Clause has been applied to sign amortization codes by the United States Supreme Court; (4) review paradigmatic cases from Florida courts and federal courts with Florida jurisdiction; (5) discuss the precedential value of these cases; (6) discuss Lingle and whether it requires an overturning of this precedent; and (7) discuss whether failure to overturn these cases serves the purpose of precedential jurisprudence.