Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Government may generally regulate land use in ways that diminish the market value of the regulated land, unless the regulation amounts to an unconstitutional taking under Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S.104, or Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003.
When a landowner claims that the regulation constitutes a Penn Central taking or a Lucas taking, the court must measure the regulation against a baseline. If, for instance, the landowner owns a 25-acre parcel, and the state declares one acre a wetland, the regulation may deprive the landowner of only 4% of the market value of the whole. But if the relevant baseline is the one acre designated as a wetland, then the regulation may have wiped out the market value of the wetland. As a result, the Court itself, and many scholars, have wrestled with what has come to be known as “the denominator problem”: What property rights should be included in determining the effect of a regulation? The Supreme Court faced that problem this term in Murr v. Wisconsin, 2017 WL 2694699.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
On Aug. 9, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul introduced New York's inaugural comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. In sum, the plan aims to update government networks, bolster county-level digital defenses, and regulate critical infrastructure.
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.