Tag Archives: Penn Central

Court Rejects Takings Claim Based on Temporary Prohibition of Mining

As we’ve reported in the past, temporary takings are compensable in California.  But such claims are not easy to prove, particularly when you’re dealing with the federal government imposing temporary regulations preventing use of property.  A recent case, Reoforce v. United States, demonstrates some of the hurdles an impacted property owner may face. In Reoforce, the … Continue Reading

Temporary Regulatory Takings Do Exist in California!

Given the maze of procedural and substantive hurdles involved, property owners rarely succeed with regulatory takings claims.  Even when owners do win, it is yet more uncommon for courts to award damages, instead allowing the public agency to repeal the regulation.  But securing a victory on liability and a damages award for a temporary regulatory … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Hears Argument on Takings Case: Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District

As we previewed in our recent "year in review" piece, the U.S. Supreme Court has some takings issues before it this term.  One case, Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District, took center stage yesterday.  At issue in the case is whether the the "nexus" and "proportionality" tests that we have all come to … Continue Reading

More on San Clemente Regulatory Takings Case

Yesterday, we wrote about the Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente decision.  For more information on the decision, see the following: Our E-Alert, Court of Appeal Upholds Regulatory Takings Decision Under Penn Central Test; Man Bites Dog! California Property Owner Wins Regulatory Taking Case in the California Court of Appeal, a blog … Continue Reading

Regulatory Takings: Economic Confusion Subsequent to Penn Central

We’ve covered in the past regulatory takings claims and the benchmark three-prong Penn Central test for analyzing potential liability.  We’ve also noted the issues involved in consistently applying those factors, and the resulting unpredictibility in evaluating the merits of potential regulatory takings claims.   William Wade, Ph.D., a resource economist with the firm Energy and Water Economics, often … Continue Reading

Regulatory Takings: Economics, Confusion and Inconsistency

When analyzing potential liability for a regulatory takings claim, most land use and eminent domain attorneys immediately look to the three-prong test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104.  Those three factors include: the economic impact of the regulation; the extent to which the regulation has interfered … Continue Reading
LexBlog