Loading...
The false dichotomy between physical and regulatory takings analysis
Peterson, Andrea L.
Peterson, Andrea L.
Author(s)
Author(s) (Additional)
Illustrator(s)
Producer(s)
Contributor(s)
Contributor(s) (Other)
Editor(s)
Advisor(s)
Contact(s)
Data Collector(s)
Keywords
Collections
Files
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Online Access
Abstract
"This Article examines the line drawn by the U.S. Supreme Court in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency between physical and regulatory takings. Justice Stevens, writing for the Court, asserted that the two types of takings are entirely distinct, that no analogies should be drawn between them, and that physical and regulatory takings claims should be analyzed in a completely different manner from one another. This Article challenges Stevens’ approach, arguing that analogies have been and should be drawn between physical and regulatory takings, and that there is no basis for using different principles to analyze physical and regulatory takings claims. Moreover, this Article asserts that in resolving takings claims, courts should focus on why the government deprived the claimant of property, regardless of whether the alleged taking involved a physical invasion or a regulatory use restriction, since the fundamental issue is whether fairness requires the payment of compensation." (p. 1)
Note(s)
Topic
Type
Article
Date
2007
Identifier
ISBN
DOI
Copyright/License
With permission of the license/copyright holder