Property Law and Real Estate Commons^™

Michigan Supreme Court Overturns Landmark Eminent Domain Case, Patricia E. Salkin

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Brief Of The American Planning Association Et Al. As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Kelo V. New London, No. 04-108 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2005), John D. Echeverria

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of The National League Of Cities Et Al. As Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Kelo V. New London, No. 04-108 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2005), J. Peter Byrne

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Irresponsible Legislating: Reeling In The Aftermath Of Kelo, Patricia E. Salkin

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Condemnation Of Low Income Residential Communities Under The Takings Clause, J. Peter Byrne

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Part 1 of this paper, I describe the evolution of interpretation of the "public use" clause that authorizes the use of eminent domain for urban redevelopment. In Part 2, I chart the effort to narrow the scope of public use in order to eliminate or police redevelopment by condemnation. In this part, I present and analyze the arguments for such reinterpretation and the new rules suggested for how public use should be understood. I also sketch the changing economic and political situation of cities that lead them to take this activist approach to positive economic planning. I conclude that …

The Misplaced Flight To Substance, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Courts and commentators have struggled for years to come up with a substantive test for what kinds of condemnations are for a "public use." Does public use mean government ownership and control of property after it is taken? This would preclude delegation of eminent domain to common carriers and utilities. Does public use mean public access to the property after it is taken? This would preclude using eminent domain to acquire facilities off-limits to the public, like prisons.

Faced with these problems of under-inclusion, courts have gravitated to the idea that public use means public purpose. The U.S. Supreme Court …

Public Ruses, James E. Krier, Christopher Serkin

Articles

The public use requirement of eminent domain law may be working its way back into the United States Constitution. To be sure, the words "public use" appear in the document-and in many state constitutions as well, but the federal provision applies to the states in any event-as one of the Fifth Amendment's limitations on the government's inherent power to take private property against the will of its owners. (The other limitation is that "just compensation" must be paid, of which more later.) Any taking of private property, the text suggests, must be for public use. Those words, however, have amounted …

Public Ruses, Christopher Serkin, James E. Krier

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The Fifth Amendment's public use requirement - a dead letter for decades - has recently been resurrected by the Michigan Supreme Court, overruling Poletown, and by the United States Supreme Court, granting certiorari in Kelo v. City of New London. At issue in these cases is the government's ability to condemn property from one private property owner and retransfer it to another, usually with a justification of more-or-less indirect economic benefits to the community. This Essay first argues the legitimacy of these government actions exists on a spectrum from true public uses, to public ruses that primarily benefit private interests …

Making Eminent Domain Humane, Ralph Nader, Alan Hirsch

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

A Second Take: Re-Examining Our Regulatory Takings Jurisprudence Post-Tahoe, Robert W. Diubaldo

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Note discusses the aftermath of the landmark case, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agencey. This Comment first discusses the background of regulatory takings jurisprudence, from Justice Holmes' landmark Pennsylvania Coal opinion to the present. It further analyzes the recent Tahoe decision, focusing on both the strengths and weaknesses of the decision and its potential impact on the future of takings. Finally, the Comment offers a different analytical framework from which to analyze regulatory takings. Under this theory, courts would abandon the partial/total distinction, and instead focus on the actual loss from the landowner's point of view. …

Eminent Domain Economics: Should ‘Just Compensation’ Be Abolished, And Would ‘Takings Insurance’ Work Instead?, Steve Calandrillo

Articles

In a defeat for staunch property rights advocates, the Supreme Court ruled this spring that a prohibition on land development in the Tahoe basin did not amount to a de facto taking of land such that the constitutional mandate of just compensation was triggered. The Tahoe decision highlights the struggle in eminent domain jurisprudence over the proper treatment of so-called regulatory takings. It has long been taken for granted that when the government exercises its power of eminent domain to take private property in the name of the public good, it must reimburse displaced landowners. While compensation for physical takings …

The Public-Use Question As A Takings Problem, Nicole Stelle Garnett

Journal Articles

Government officials regularly use the power of eminent domain to benefit private entities, and just as regularly justify their actions with assertions about the need to promote "economic development." Rather, the remarkable thing about these cases is that the courts questioned the government's right to do so. In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Fifth Amendment demands broad deference to a government's decision to exercise the power of eminent domain. Midkiff makes clear that "public use" challenges are subject to rational-basis review. That is, so long as a taking can be justified by …

Pliability Rules, Abraham Bell, Gideon Parchomovsky

Michigan Law Review

In 1543, the Polish astronomer, Nicolas Copernicus, determined the heliocentric design of the solar system. Copernicus was motivated in large part by the conviction that Claudius Ptolemy's geocentric astronomical model, which dominated scientific thought at that time, was too incoherent, complex, and convoluted to be true. Hence, Copernicus made a point of making his model coherent, simple, and elegant. Nearly three and a half centuries later, at the height of the impressionist movement, the French painter Claude Monet set out to depict the Ruen Cathedral in a series of twenty paintings, each presenting the cathedral in a different light. Monet's …

Joint Teaching With A Colleague, For Just A Week Or Two, Richard H. Seamon, Stephen A. Spitz

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Property Law: The Uniform Conservation Easements Act: An Attorney's Guide For The Oklahoma Landowner, Erin Mcdaniel

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Power Of Congress "Without Limitation": The Property Clause And Federal Regulation Of Private Property, Peter A. Appel

Scholarly Works

Congress has overlooked a powerful tool for regulating within state jurisdictions: the Property Clause of the United States Constitution. The United States Government owns land in every state and approximately thirty percent of the total land in the United States. The federal government's authority to regulate its property within states derives from the Property Clause and has been described by the Supreme Court as "without limitation."

Professor Appel traces the historical development of the Constitution's Property Clause, from its pre-constitutional origins through modern Supreme Court decisions and academic conceptions. Professor Appel compares the narrow view of Property Clause scholarship - …

Property Law: 2001 Survey Of Florida Law, Ronald B. Brown, Joseph M. Grohman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

So You Want To Ban Mountaintop Mining--You May Have To Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, Stephanie René Timmermeyer

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

2000 Survey Of Florida Law: Real Property, Ronald B. Brown, Joseph M. Grohman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

City Of Monterey V. Del Mont Dunes: Did The Supreme Court Needlessly Complicate Land Use And Property Standards By Not Taking The Opportunity To Develop Its Holding, Danielle Monnig

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

The Current State Of Regulatory Takings In Supreme Court Jurisprudence: A Look At City Of Monterey V. Del Monte Dunes At Monterey, Ltd., Robert S. Payne

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Survey Of Florida Law: Real Property, Ronald B. Brown

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Property Law: 1998 Survey Of Florida Law, Ronald B. Brown, Joseph M. Grohman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Original Understanding Of The Takings Clause, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Environmental Law & Policy Institute Papers & Reports

The champions of the property rights movement claim that they are fighting to restore the original understanding of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They invoke James Madison and other founding fathers as support for proposed statutes that require the federal government to pay property owners when it prevents them from harming the environment or jeopardizing the survival of endangered species. Wetlands regulation, it is often said, "takes" property by diminishing its value, and the founders adopted the Takings Clause to ensure that, when government regulations diminished the value of property, the owner would receive compensation. Increasing numbers of …

Just A Little Longer Mrs. Suitum, Your Case Is Just About Ripe For Review: Suitum V. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Kevin J. Cross

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Understanding Mahon In Historical Context, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Despite its enormous influence on constitutional law, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon is just such an opinion; the primary purpose of the author’s article Jam for Justice Holmes: Reassessing the Significance of Mahon is to clarify Holmes's intent by placing the opinion in historical context and in the context of Holmes's other opinions. While other scholars have also sought to place Mahon in context, his account differs in large part because of its recognition, as part of the background of Mahon, of a separate line of cases involving businesses affected with a public interest.

The author argues that at …

Jam For Justice Holmes: Reassessing The Significance Of Mahon, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

When courts and commentators discuss Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, they use the same word with remarkable regularity: famous. Mahon has achieved this fame in part because it was the occasion for conflict between judicial giants, and because the result seems ironic. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.--the great Lochner dissenter and a jurist generally considered a champion of judicial deference to legislatures in the sphere of economic decision-making--wrote the opinion striking down a Pennsylvania statute barring coal mining that could cause the surface to cave-in. Sharply dissenting from Holmes's opinion was his consistent ally on the Court, Justice Louis …

Property Law, W. Wade Berryhill

Law Faculty Publications

As legal years go, action on the 1996 legislative and judicial fronts was relatively quiet in the area of property law. The legislative activity which spawned most of the interest was bills addressing the definitional limits of the unauthorized practice of law in real estate closings. These bills were not enacted and have been carried over for the next legislative session. Several judicial decisions, although none could be described as landmark determinations, are of interest and clarify points of law. These cases, as well as selected items of legislation which are believed to be of the most practical interest to …

A Dozen Propositions On Private Property, Public Rights, And The New Takings Legislation, Carol M. Rose

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Takings" Jurisprudence In The U.S. Supreme Court: The Past 10 Years, Gregory S. Alexander

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No area of American property law has been more controversial in recent years than the government regulation of uses of private property. No aspect of American constitutional law more sharply poses the dilemma about the legitimate powers of the regulatory state than the requirement that the government pay compensation for takings of property. The purpose of this essay is to acquaint the non-American legal scholar who is unfamiliar with the recent developments in the United States Supreme Court “takings” jurisprudence. The essay does not presuppose any background knowledge about either American constitutional or property law. Instead it attempts to familiarize …