Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
13 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Fifth Amendment |
“private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.” |
|
|
Overview of issues |
Is there a taking? is it property? (not dealt in this course). is taking for public use? is there just compensation? (not dealt with in this course). |
|
|
Regulatory taking |
when the government’s regulation leaves no reasonable economically viable use of the property |
|
|
Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon |
Holmes. The regulation constituted a taking because it made it commercially impracticable to mine certain coal and had the same effect for constitutional purposes as appropriating or destroying the property.when the regulation reaches a certain magnitude, if the regulation goes too far it must be considered taking. |
|
|
Brandeis Dissent |
Average reciprocity of advantage- affected property owners must receive some benefit from the regulation that burdens them |
|
|
Miller v. Schoene |
Facts: state ordered plaintiffs to cut down a large number of red cedar trees growing on their property to prevent the spread of rust or plant disease to apple orchards in the vicinity. State argued regulation, not taking. Holding: Court said that this is a police power. Court applied same balancing test that Holmes used in Mahon, but comes out to a different side. The Court said the state did not go too far |
|
|
Penn Central Transportation. Author. Facts. Holding |
Brennan. Facts: NYC designated Penn Central as landmark. Thus any changes to building required permission from city. Penn argued that the city’s refusal to improve development of station constituted taking. |
|
|
Penn Central. Factors of significance. |
Economic impact of regulation on public benefits Economic impact of the regulation on private costs (investment backed expectations)The character of the government action |
|
|
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Community |
After person purchased beachfront property the state adopted a coastal protection plan that prevented construction of any permanent habitable structures on the property. SC found that protection law was a taking. Court said taht regulation denied all economically beneficial or productive use of land. |
|
|
Regulatory taking summary |
clear is taht a government regulation is a taking if it leaves no reasonable economically viable use of property, but not a taking simply because it decreases the value of the person’s prperty, so long as it leaves reasonable economically viable uses. |
|
|
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission - Scali |
Facts: Government conditioned a permit for development of beachfront property on the owner’s granting the public an easement to cross the beach for beach access. Is this a taking? if state forced you to open the property to everyone else, that would probably be a invasion or per se violation. If the government creates this type of easement for public use, it’s a taking per se thus would have to pay for it. |
|
|
Dolan v. City of Tigard- Rehnquis |
Facts: Government gave the owner of store permit to expand the building on the condition that the land set aside for public greenway along the creek to minimize flooding and bicycle path. Issue: whether conditions constitute a taking? Two part test: nexus between legitimate interest; and roughly proportionate to government's justification. |
|
|
Kelo v. City of London (Stevens) |
SC held that a taking is for public use so long as the government acts out of a reasonable belief that the taking will be for the benefit of the public |
