Ausness, Richard C.1993. Wild Dunes and Serbonian bogs: The impact of the Lucas decision on shoreline protection programs. Denver University Law Review70, 3: 437-471.
2.
Ballenger, Laurie G.1993. Ahousebuilt on sand: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. North Carolina Law Review71, 3: 928-948.
3.
Blumm, Michael C.1993. Property myths, judicial activism, and the Lucas case. Environmental Law23, 3: 907-917.
4.
Brown, James J.1993. Takings: Who says it needs to be so confusing?Stetson Law Review22, 2: 379-408.
5.
Cook, Lynda Graham
. 1993. Lucas and endangered species protection: When "take" and "takings" collide. U.C. Davis Law Review27, 1: 185-217.
6.
Cook, Marshall Currey
. 1993. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: Low tide for the Takings Clause. Mercer Law Review44,4:1433-1441.
7.
Delaney, John J.1993. Advancing private property rights: The lessons of Lucas. Stetson Law Review22:395-408.
8.
Disheroon, Fred R.1993. After Lucas: No more wetland takings?Vermont Law Review17, 3: 683-693.
9.
Epstein, Richard A.1993a. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: A tangled web of expectations. Stanford Law Review45, 5: 1369-1392.
10.
Epstein, Richard A.1993b. The seven deadly sins of takings law: The dissents in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review26,4:955-978.
11.
Epstein, Richard A.
. 1992a. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: Brief of the Institute for Justice as amicus curiae in support of petitioner. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review25, 4: 1225-1231.
12.
Epstein, Richard A.1992b. Ruminations on Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: An introduction to amicus curiae brief. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review25, 4: 1233-1258.
13.
Fisher, William W, Hi
. 1993. The trouble with Lucas. Stanford Law Review45,5: 1393-1410.
14.
Freilich, Robert H.
, and Elizabeth A. Garvin. 1993. Takings after Lucas: Growth management, planning, and regulatory implementation will work better than before. Stetson Law Review22, 2: 409-434.
15.
Funk, William
. 1993. Revolution or restatement? Awaiting answers to Lucas's unanswered questions. Environmental Law23, 3: 891-900.
16.
Glass, Thomas P.1993. Property law: Takings and the nuisance exception in the aftermath of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 404 S.E.2d. 895 (S.C. 1991), revd, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (interim ed. 1992). University of Dayton Law Review18, 2: 509-538.
17.
Goldman-Carter, Jan
. 1993. Protecting wetlands and reasonable investment-backed expectations in the wake of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Land and Water Law Review28, 2: 425-466.
18.
Haffner, Paul F.1993. Regulatory takings: Anew categorical rule: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992). University of Cincinnati Law Review61, 3: 1035-1066.
19.
Hamess, Cotton C., II.1992. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: Its historic context and shifting constitutional principles. Pace Environmental Law Review10, 1: 5-20.
20.
Huffman, James L.1993. Lucas: A small step in the right direction. Environmental Law23,3:901-906.
21.
Humbach, John A.1993. Evolving thresholds of nuisance and the Takings Clause. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law18, 1: 1-29.
22.
Humbach, John A.1992. What is behind the "property rights" debate?Pace Environmental Law Review10,1: 21-42.
23.
Kadlecek, Ann
. 1993. The effect of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council on the law of regulatory takings. Washington Law Review68, 2:415-434.
24.
LaBelle, Judith M.1992. Takings law in light of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Pace Environmental Law Review10,1: 73-84.
25.
Large, Donald
. 1993. Lucas: A flawed attempt to redefine the Mahon analysis. Environmental Law23, 3: 883-889.
26.
Lazarus, Richard J.1993. Putting the correct "spin" on Lucas. Stanford Law Review45,5:1411-1432.
27.
Lewis, Sylvia
. 1992. Goodbye, Ramapo. Hello, Yakima and Isle of Palms. Planning58, 8: 9-16.
28.
Mandelker, Daniel R.1993. Of mice and missiles: A true account of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law8, 2: 285-306.
29.
Mylott, Andrew R.1992. Is there a doctrine in the house? The nuisance exception to the Takings Clause has been mortally wounded by Lucas. Wisconsin Law Review, pp. 1299-1328.
30.
Nolon. John R.1992a. Footprints in the shifting sands of the Isle of Palms: A practical analysis of regulatory takings cases. Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law8, 1: 1-51.
31.
Nolon. John R.1992b. Private property investment, Lucas and the fairness doctrine. Pace Environmental Law Review10, 1: 43-71.
32.
Note
. 1993. Taking back takings: A Coasean approach to regulation. Harvard Law Review106, 4: 914-931.
33.
Palzer, Jeffrey T.1993. "Taking" aim at land use regulations: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Creighton Law Review26, 2: 525-556.
34.
Patterson, Jamee Jordan
. 1993. California land use regulation post Lucas: The history and evolution of nuisance and public property laws portend little impact in California. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy11, 2: 175-201.
35.
Sax, Joseph L.1993a. Property rights and the economy of nature: Understanding Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Stanford Law Review45, 5: 1433-1455.
36.
Sax, Joseph L.1993b. Rights that "inhere in the title itself": The impact of the Lucas case on Western water law. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review26,4: 943-954.
37.
Somerville, Linda S.1993. Recent decisions: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Duquesne Law Review31, 2: 427-439.
38.
Sugameli, Glenn P.1993. Takings issues in light of Lucas v. South Carolina Council: A decision full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Virginia Environmental Law Journal12, 3: 439-504.
39.
Sullivan, Edward J.1993. Lucas and creative constitutional interpretation. Environmental Law23, 3: 919-923.
40.
Tibbetts, John
. 1995. Everybody's taking the Fifth: Property rights advocates are pushing their "takings" message in every available forum. Planning61, 1: 4-9.
41.
Washburn, Robert M.1993. Land use control, the individual, and society: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Maryland Law Review52, 1:162-216.
42.
Watters, Lawrence
. 1993. A colloquium on Lucas: Introduction and decision. Environmental Law23, 3: 869-881.
