In a 2015 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that real and personal property should not be treated differently under the Takings Clause and that a government condition requiring raisin growers, in certain years, to reserve a percentage of their crop for the government to manage in noncompetitive venues was a per se physical taking. The decision to treat both real and personal property as equally worthy of protection under the Takings Clause has merit given the weak historical evidence suggesting stronger protection for land and the importance of personal property to income generation and capital development in a modern society. What does not make sense is the Court’s continued expansion of its per se physical takings concept to govern ma...
The complicated arena of takings jurisprudence has confused lawyers, scholars, and courts for well o...
The champions of the property rights movement claim that they are fighting to restore the original u...
Constitutional protection of private property is grounded in a conflict between two legal principles...
In a 2015 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that real and personal property should not be treate...
In Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the Supreme Court expanded its so-called per se analysis unde...
The U.S. Supreme Court distinguishes between appropriations and regulations of property rights when ...
Contemporary takings scholarship has devoted much attention to the problem of regulatory takings and...
In 1987, the Supreme Court decided three cases involving takings challenges to governmental exerci...
This article critiques the Court\u27s attempt to cabin the Lucas per se takings rule by limiting i...
The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause does not prevent the federal (or a state) government from takin...
The future of judicial takings may rest on the ability of the Court to define property in a robust a...
The original understanding of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment was clear on two points. The...
Although one of the key questions in a federal system is how authority should be allocated between t...
DEFINING PRIVATE PROPERTY INTERESTS IN AMERICA’S NEW ECONOMIC REALITY: THE CASE FOR THE PRIMAC...
This Article will examine the "fairness" dimension of takings jurisprudence from both the macro and ...
The complicated arena of takings jurisprudence has confused lawyers, scholars, and courts for well o...
The champions of the property rights movement claim that they are fighting to restore the original u...
Constitutional protection of private property is grounded in a conflict between two legal principles...
In a 2015 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that real and personal property should not be treate...
In Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the Supreme Court expanded its so-called per se analysis unde...
The U.S. Supreme Court distinguishes between appropriations and regulations of property rights when ...
Contemporary takings scholarship has devoted much attention to the problem of regulatory takings and...
In 1987, the Supreme Court decided three cases involving takings challenges to governmental exerci...
This article critiques the Court\u27s attempt to cabin the Lucas per se takings rule by limiting i...
The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause does not prevent the federal (or a state) government from takin...
The future of judicial takings may rest on the ability of the Court to define property in a robust a...
The original understanding of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment was clear on two points. The...
Although one of the key questions in a federal system is how authority should be allocated between t...
DEFINING PRIVATE PROPERTY INTERESTS IN AMERICA’S NEW ECONOMIC REALITY: THE CASE FOR THE PRIMAC...
This Article will examine the "fairness" dimension of takings jurisprudence from both the macro and ...
The complicated arena of takings jurisprudence has confused lawyers, scholars, and courts for well o...
The champions of the property rights movement claim that they are fighting to restore the original u...
Constitutional protection of private property is grounded in a conflict between two legal principles...