Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The "polestar" of regulatory takings jurisprudence is Penn Central Transp. Co. v.New York City (1973). [3] In Penn Central, the Court denied a takings claim brought by the owner of Grand Central Terminal following refusal of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve plans for construction of 50-story office building over Grand Central Terminal.
The doctrine of regulatory takings "is a mix of per se rules and balancing tests, with an ample amount of ambiguity thrown in." [16] Most cases involving regulatory takings are "evaluated under the multifactor balancing test established in Penn Central Transportation Co. v.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision on compensation for regulatory takings. [1] Penn Central sued New York City after the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission denied its bid to build a large office building on top of Grand Central Terminal.
Regulatory takings occur when a regulation reduces a piece of land's value. A regulatory takings statute would require courts to recognize the amount of the reduction as a compensable taking ...
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that when the character of the governmental action is a permanent physical occupation of property, the government actions effects regulatory taking to the extent of the occupation, without regard to whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has ...
Lucas filed suit asserting that the restrictions on the use of his lots was a taking of his property without just compensation. The lower court agreed and awarded Lucas $1,232,387.50 as just compensation for the regulatory taking. The government of South Carolina appealed, and the Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed. [2]
Touting to enact stricter border policies, dismantle regulatory frameworks, and end global conflicts, Trump’s second inaugural address, followed by the slew of executive orders he issued on ...
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that whether a regulatory act constitutes a taking requiring compensation depends on the extent of diminution in the value of the property. [1] The decision thereby started the doctrine of regulatory taking.