Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In several key rulings since the mid-1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court has begun to reshape the contours of regulatory takings. The emerging doctrine appears to reaffirm private rights in property , narrow the reach of governmental regulation, and extend the scope of judicial review. Despite their "muddled" transitional nature, these developments in the regulatory takings arena are sending a clear signal to public administrators to attend more carefully to the effects of their regulatory actions on private property rights. The purpose of this article is to analyze the key issues currently at play and point to some of the potential implications for the field of public administration.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albert, T. L. , & Halvorsen, J. A. (1992). Land use regulation: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: A new use for takings law. Natural Resources and Environment, 7(2), 65-68.

Berger, M. (1988). Happy birthday Constitution: The Supreme Court establishes new ground rules for land-use planning. Urban Lawyer, 20, 735-800.

Brubaker, S. (1993). Up (sort of) from footnote four: In the matter of property rights. Public Interest Law Review Annual, 97-126.

Epstein, R. A. (1985). Takings, private property and the power of eminent domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Epstein, R. A. (1992). Yee v. City of Escondido: The Supreme Court strikes out again. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 26(1), 3-12.

Frank, R. M. (1993). Inverse condemnation litigation in the 1990s: The uncertain legacy of the Supreme Court's Lucas and Yee decisions. Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, 43, 85-118.

Freilich, R. H. (1993, May). Avoiding takings under Lucas. In R. H. Freilich(Chair),Avoiding takings under Lucas. The Bettman Symposium conducted at the national meeting of the American Planning Association, Chicago.

Freilich, R. H. , Williams, T. C. , Gum, S. R. , & O'Connell, K. E. (1991, Fall). 1990-91 Supreme Court review: The new conservative paradigm impacts state and local governments. Urban Lawyer, 23, 499-624.

Haar, C. W. (1976). Land-use planning (3rd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.

10.

Mandelker, D. R. (1988). Land use law (2nd ed.). Charlottesville, VA: Michie.

11.

Mandelker, D. R. (1993). Of nice and missiles: A true account of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, 8(2), 285-306.

12.

Michelman, F. (1967). Property, utility and fairness: Comments on the ethical foundations of "Just Compensation" law. Harvard Law Review, 80, 1165-1258.

13.

Michelman, F. (1988). Takings 1987. Columbia Law Review, 88, 1600-1629.

14.

Payne, J. M. (1993). From the courts: Takings and environmental regulations. Real Estate Law Journal, 21(3), 312-321.

15.

Pelham, T. G. (1992). The Lucas decision: New challenges for land-use lawyers. Urban, State and Local Law Newsletter, 9(1), 1-16.

16.

Porter, D. R. (1992). The Lucas case. Urban Land, 51(9), 27-30.

17.

Rubenfeld, J. (1993). Usings. Yale Law Review, 102(5), 1077-1163.

18.

Sax, J. (1971). Takings, private property and public rights. Yale Law Journal, 81, 149.

19.

Sax, J. (1992). The constitutional dimensions of property: A debate. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 26, 23-37.

20.

Wlliams, N., Jr. , Smith, R. M. , Siemon, C. , Mandelker, D. R. , & Babcock, R. F. (1984). The White River Junction Manifesto. Vermont Law Review, 9, 193-245.

21.

Wise, C. (1992a). The changing doctrine of regulatory taking and the executive branch. Administrative Law Review, 44(2), 403-423.

22.

Wse, C. (1992b). New life for the Fifth Amendment: The Supreme Court's new doctrine of regulatory takings. Public Administration Quarterly, 16(3), 303-325.

23.

Zallin, N. (1991). Shifting sands and shifting doctrine: The Supreme Court's changing takings doctrine and South Carolina's coastal zone statute. California Law Review, 79, 212-213.

Regulatory Takings

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References