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

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney

The court reverses and remands a lower court decision holding that a portion of the National Park Service's (NPS') backcountry management plan (BMP) for the Canyonlands National Park in Utah that allows motor vehicle access on a 10-mile segment of road violates the National Park Service Organic Act ...

Hells Canyon Alliance v. U.S. Forest Serv.

The court upholds a U.S. Forest Service recreation management plan that provided for a three-day window every other week during which motorized water craft would be barred from part of the wild section of the Snake River in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. The court first holds that the Fo...

<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...

Jones v. United States

The court holds that an 11-month period between the publication of a new statutory fee for unpatented mining claims and the compliance deadline afforded a claim holder a reasonable opportunity to comply with the deadline, and, thus, did not violate his procedural due process rights. Pursuant to the ...