Search Results
Use the filters on the left-hand side of this screen to refine the results further by topic or document type.

L.C. Dev. Co. v. Lincoln County

The court holds that a county in Missouri can regulate the location of solid waste facilities. A development company challenged a county regulation that prohibits the location of a sanitary landfill within one-quarter mile of any occupied dwelling. A trial court denied the company's motion for summa...

Adams Outdoor Adver. v. E. Lansing, City of

The court holds that a municipal regulation prohibiting billboards on rooftops did not effect a taking of an outdoor advertiser's interest in its rooftop signs. The regulation, enacted in 1975, prohibited rooftop billboards after 1987. The advertiser renewed its leases for rooftop billboards with se...

<i>Kelo</i>'s Legacy

Editors' Summary: Rather than signaling the death of private property rights, as media and the public initially feared, the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London ushered in an era of increased state and federal protection for private property. In this Article, Daniel H. Cole examines Kelo's repercussions for urban redevelopment. He begins with a description of the case, and then examines the resulting backlash from the media and public opinion, which decried the decision as unduly expanding eminent domain powers.

Confusion About "Change in Value" and "Return on Equity" Approaches to the <i>Penn Central</i> Test in Temporary Takings

Editors' Summary: In this Article, William W. Wade evaluates the conceptual measurement of economic impact within the Penn Central test for income-producing properties recently adjudicated in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The discussion considers measurement of the denominator of the takings fraction related to Penn Central's parcel as a whole and whether it differs between permanent and temporary takings.

Environmental Justice and the Constitution

In a recent essay, David Coursen asks an important and unexamined question: Are environmental justice policies, which seek to avoid disproportionate environmental burdens on minority and poor communities, on a "collision course" with the Equal Protection Clause? In concluding that a potential collision is more illusory than real, Coursen offers a number of reasons why governmental actions to promote environmental justice have not been challenged in court and, even if they were to be, would not be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny.

3883 Conn., L.L.C. v. District of Columbia

The court holds that although it has jurisdiction to hear an individual's claim for damages against a city for disrupting his construction project, the individual's due process rights were not violated. The individual was granted the necessary permits to begin preparing the site for the construction...

Taubman Realty Group Ltd. Partnership v. Mineta

The court holds that the owner of a retail development lacked standing to bring Federal-Aid Highway Act (FAHA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) actions against the Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) for failing to prevent a county from approving the...

Ben Oehrleins & Sons & Daughter, Inc. v. Hennepin County

The court holds that county ordinance provisions directing solid waste to designated in-state facilities do not discriminate against interstate commerce; however, provisions that prevent the delivery of waste to out-of-state processors violate the U.S. Commerce Clause. The court first holds that the...