Property Law and Real Estate Commons^™

The Armstrong Principle, The Narratives Of Takings, And Compensation Statutes, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is famous for inspiring disagreement. More than one hundred years have passed since the Supreme Court departed from the original understanding of the clause and interpreted regulations as potentially falling within its ambit. Although the passage of time has established the principle that regulations can run afoul of the Takings Clause, the Court has been unable to offer a coherent vision of when compensation is required. Academic commentators also have failed to reach agreement on the issue, offering an enormous range of solutions to the takings question. The newest field of controversy involves …

Review Of Regulatory Takings: Law, Economics And Politics, By William A. Fischel, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article reviews Regulatory Takings: law, Economics and Politics by William A. Fischel (1997).

William Fischel's Regulatory Takings confronts one of the most difficult and significant questions in constitutional law: how should courts determine which government regulations run afoul of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to provide compensation when it takes private property? Broadly read, the clause would bar government regulations with redistributive consequences, thus rendering the modern regulatory state unconstitutional. This reading, championed by Professor Richard Epstein, has achieved great prominence in academic and political debates, but the vast preponderance of judges and …

Deregulatory Takings, Breach Of The Regulatory Contract, And The Telecommunications Act Of 1996, William J. Baumol, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Professors Baumol and Merrill reply to Deregulatory Takings and Breach of the Regulatory Contract, published last year in this Review, which argued that the price incumbents may charge potential competitors for bottleneck facilities under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 should be based not on forward-looking costs but on historical costs. Professors Baumol and Merrill contend that pricing with reference to historical costs would depart from the principles called for by economic analysis for efficient pricing and they further argue that neither the Takings Clause nor the regulatory contract precludes the use of forward-looking costs in setting prices. If a taking …

Takings And The Nature Of Property, Laura S. Underkuffler

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Takings Law And The Regulatory State: A Response To R.S. Radford, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In the Winter 1994 issue of the Fordham Urban Law Journal, R.S. Radford provided an illuminating review of Dennis Coyle's book Property Rights and the Constitution. Radford observes that, in addition to studying post-New Deal land use cases, Coyle "provides an ideological framework that illuminates several key strands in the constitutional jurisprudence of property law ... [and] sets forth his own theories of the vital role of private property in creating and maintaining the American constitutional system." Radford's review is a generally enthusiastic one. He sees Coyle's book as providing a much-needed corrective to "the existing pro-regulatory bias …

The Original Understanding Of The Takings Clause And The Political Process, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The original understanding of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment was clear on two points. The clause required compensation when the federal government physically took private property, but not when government regulations limited the ways in which property could be used. In 1922, however, the Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon established a new takings regime. In an opinion by Justice Holmes, the Court held that compensation must be provided when government regulation "goes too far" in diminishing the value of private property. Since that decision, the Supreme Court has been unable to define clearly what kind …

Takings Clause

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Regulatory Taking Of Public Water And Land Resource Development Rights After Lucas, Jerome C. Muys

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

7 pages.

Property Rights And Public Resources, Mark L. Pollot

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

4 pages.

City Of Tigard And Takings Law, Richard D. Lazarus

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

10 pages.

Contains 1 page of references.

Takings And Retroactivity, Jan G. Laitos

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

25 pages.

Contains references.

Takings Clause: Saratoga Water Services, Inc. V. Saratoga County Water Authority

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Harmful Use And The Takings Clause In The Eye Of The Beholder: Lucas V. South Carolina Coastal Council, Charles H. Clarke

Cleveland State Law Review

Whichever of these two possibilities prevails, both possibilities require the courts to perform essentially legislative functions regardless, in other words, of whether public ecological resources receive insufficient or ample protection from private enterprise that wants to consume them. The traditional Takings Clause precedents, on the other hand, would give public ecological resources and private property ample protection with minimum judicial oversight. The traditional position seems preferable for this reason.

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church Of Glendale V. County Of Los Angeles, California, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Searching For The Status Quo, Jeremy Paul

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Economics Of Public Use, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as most state constitutions, provides that private property shall not be taken "for public use" unless just compensation is paid. American courts have long construed this to mean that some showing of "publicness" is a condition precedent to a legitimate exercise of the power of eminent domain. Thus, when a proposed condemnation of property lacks the appropriate public quality, the taking is deemed to be unconstitutional and can be enjoined. In practice, however, most observers today think the public use limitation is a dead letter. Three recent decisions, upholding takings …

The Origins And Original Significance Of The Just Compensation Clause Of The Fifth Amendment, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The principle that the state necessarily owes compensation when it takes private property was not generally accepted in either colonial or revolutionary America. Uncompensated takings were frequent and found justification first in appeals to the crown and later in republicanism, the ideology of the Revolution. The post-independence movement for just compensation requirements at the state and national level was part of a broader ideological shift away from republicanism, which stressed the primacy of the common good, and toward liberalism. At the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, that shift had not been completed, but the trends of the revolutionary …