U.S. takings jurisdiction favors the defendants
Article Abstract:
Land-use cases on federal constitutional issues favor the defense side, and defendants who want to remove properly filed state court cases to federal courts can freely do so. In 1985, the US Supreme Court ruled in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank that plaintiffs claiming the denial of due process in the context of land-use regulations must use state courts before their cases are deemed ripe for federal courts. Ever since, federal dismissal of even plainly meritorious confiscatory land-use cases has been the rule.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Do-gooders' designs twist takings clause
Article Abstract:
The Hawaii Supreme Court's recent decision in Housing Finance & Dev Corp v Castle echoes the errors of the US Supreme Court in Hawaii Housing Auth v Midkiff. The latter case featured Hawaii's legislature taking the popular but misguided position that stripping landowners of their property and giving it to the lessees would lower prices and increase the housing stock. Instead it benefitted the Japanese, speculators, and the lessees who promptly sold their lots. Higher housing prices and greater scarcity and inequity resulted.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Even conservative judges bow to takings laws
Article Abstract:
The California Supreme Court violated private property rights in Ehrlich v. City of Culver City by ruling that a real estate developer had to pay an 'in lieu art fee' before erecting townhomes on the vacant lot of his former tennis club. The US Supreme Court ruled in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission that exaction fees were a taking without a reasonable connection between the real estate development and the mitigating effect of the exaction. Ehrlich argued unsuccessfully that Nollan did not permit his exaction fee.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Class actions curtailed; but the Senate's version of securities bill has a more moderate 'safe harbor.' House, Senate reach pact on securities bill
- Abstracts: Jury instructions. A matter of style: what it takes to make legal writing look persuasive. Twelve ways to a bad brief; following instincts may hurt a submission to the court
- Abstracts: TValue: interest calculations for Windows. Legalize WordPerfect for Windows
- Abstracts: Groupware installations are cooperative ventures. Software provides support services on command
- Abstracts: Survey: Boston firms lag in minority hiring. Judge: poverty lawyers also need a safety net; a New York judge joins effort to rejigger fee award formula and increase pay