The U.S. Supreme Court's latest regulatory takings decision, Palazzolo v. Rhode Island,¹ is significant for its rejection of what I term the positive notice rule.² It also confirms the narrow scope of the categorical rule, developed in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,³ for government actions that work complete takings of property.

Beyond that, Palazzolo evokes the potential for the enhanced recognition of property rights implicit in some of the Court's earlier cases. In particular, it signals fresh life to the doctrine of partial regulatory takings and to the concept of the relevant parcel. On the other hand, a majority of the Justices indicated that a weaker form of the notice rule should have some bearing on landowners' "reasonable investment-backed expectations." The latter concept is crucial in partial takings analysis, and, arguably, applies to complete takings analysis as well.