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.
Inverse condemnation is a legal concept and cause of action used by property owners when a governmental entity takes an action which damages or decreases the value of private property without obtaining ownership of the property through the use of eminent domain. Thus, unlike the typical eminent domain case, the property owner is the plaintiff ...
The case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to revisit a widely reviled decision that invited such eminent domain abuses. The Government Took a Developer's Land and Gave It to a Competitor. In ...
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.
The Fifth Amendment imposes two restrictions on government takings of private property: They must be accompanied by "just compensation," and they must be for "public use."
ATLANTA (AP) — A hearing on Tuesday raised questions about a railroad company’s use of eminent domain in one of Georgia’s poorest areas. After three days of hearings in November, an officer for the Georgia Public Service Commission granted Sandersville Railroad Co.'s request to legally condemn nine properties in Sparta, Georgia.
A hearing on Tuesday raised questions about a railroad company’s use of eminent domain in one of Georgia’s poorest areas. After three days of hearings in November, an officer for the Georgia ...
The Fifth Amendment's Takings clause does not provide for the compensation of relocation expenses if the government takes a citizen's property. [1] Therefore, until 1962, citizens displaced by a federal project were guaranteed just compensation for the property taken by the government, but had no legal right or benefit for the expenses they paid to relocate.