About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

7 SandBar 1 (2008-2009)

handle is hein.journals/sndbr7 and id is 1 raw text is: Legal Reporter for the National Sea Grant College Program ADBAR Takin The Fifth Amendment provides, nor shall pri- vate property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Courts will generally find a right to compensation when the government 1) directly appropriates private property; 2) physi- cally occupies private property; and 3) imposes a regulatory constraint on the use of property so severe as to deprive an owner of all economical- ly beneficial use. The first and second categories might also be called eminent domain or condemna- tion. Eminent domain is the inherent power of a governmental entity to take privately owned property, especially land, and convert it to pub- lic use, subject to reasonable compensation for the taking.' Condemnation is to determine and declare that certain property is assigned to public use.2 Inverse condemnation is an action brought by a property owner for compen- sation from a governmental entity that has taken the owner's property without bringing formal condemnation proceedings.3 An example of a physical taking is the Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation case. In Loretto, the government required landlords to allow installation of cable television in their rental properties. In that instance, the government gave itself the right to occupy a portion of the private property without paying for the privilege. The third category of takings is considered a regulatory taking. As noted above, mere regula- tion of property is not enough for a court to find a taking. The regulation must deprive an owner 1 Regulatory Takings Issue gs 101 of all economically beneficial use. For instance, in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the court found that a zoning ordinance prohibiting all development on a property owner's land resulted in a regulatory taking.4 If the regulation merely decreases the value of the property, it will not necessarily result in a taking. The court will perform a multi-factor balancing test outlined in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City' to determine whether or not there has been a taking. The fac- tors include: 1) the extent to which the regula- tion interferes with investment-backed expecta- tions; 2) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; and 3) the character of the gov- ernment's interest, or the social goals being pro- moted by the government. In this edition of The SandBar, we have focused on various takings issues. The cases range from more traditional takings cases involving land use regulations to more novel cases, includ- ing a case in which fishermen alleged a taking when their fishing licenses were rendered useless by an area being designated as a national wildlife refuge. Please enjoy and feel free to contact us with any questions or comments. Endnotes 1. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 233 (2d Pocket ed. 2001). 2. Id. at 123-124. 3. Id. at 124. 4. 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). 5. 438 US 104 (U.S. 1978).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most