Takings

Supreme Court opens federal courts to a floodgate of takings cases

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overruled Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) and held that owners aggrieved by state regulations they believe took their property without just compensation can immediately sue for relief in federal courts under 42 U.S.C. §1983 even if state law would have provided just compensation through administrative procedures....

California beachfront owner temporarily denied power to place a gate limiting public access to the beach

The Supreme denied certiorari from a California court that interpreted California statutes to ensure public access to the beach and that prohibited a beachfront owner from installing a gate to prevent such public access. ...

No right to jury trial in regulatory takings case

A Massachusetts court held that a landowner was not entitled to have a jury determine whether a wetlands protection bylaw constituted a regulatory taking. ...

Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states

The Supreme Court held in Timbs v. Indiana, 2019 WL 691578 (2019) that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states by incorporation into the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Tyson Timbs had pled guilty to drug crimes that had a maximum fine of $10,000 but the police had seized his car in a civil forfeiture even though the car was worth $42,000 or more than four times the maximum fine... Read more about Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states

Restrictive covenant held not to be "property" compensable under the takings clause

A town bought a parcel of land subject to a restrictive covenant in order to build a municipal water storage tank contrary to a restrictive covenant prohibiting such construction. The town sued for a declaratory judgment that it could violate the covenant without paying just compensation under the fourteenth amendment's takings clause. Relying on an earlier case decided by the Colorado Supreme Court, Smith v. Clifton...

City takes property when it constructs a public park and invites the public to cross private property to access the park

A city created a public park next to private property and then used physical signs, maps on Web sites, and other methods to suggest to the public that they were free to cross that private property to get to the beach. Those acts were sufficient to constitute a taking of property without just compensation. The city effectively took a public easement from the private owner....

Town can alter zoning law retroactively to prohibit Airbnb use

The Massachusetts Land Court has ruled that a town may amend its zoning ordinance to prohibit Airbnb use and that retroactive application of the new law to those who established Airbnb use before it was passed is lawful. The owner had no right to have the prior Airbnb use "grandfathered in" as a prior nonconforming use under state statutes. Styller v. Aylward, 2018 Mass. LCR LEXIS 194 (Mass. Land Ct. 2018). Read more about Town can alter zoning law retroactively to prohibit Airbnb use

Town acquires prescriptive easement allowing public to use a road and abutting parcel

When a road and abutting triangle of land was used the public and maintained by the town, the town acquired a prescriptive easement for continued use of the road by the public. Athanasiou v. Board of Selectmen of Westhampton,82 N.E. 3d 436 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017). The town's highway superintendent maintained the area, plowed, sanded...

Is it an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation to require sex offenders to move away from their home if a school, playground, or daycare center is established near their home after their initial occupation?

In Mann v. Georgia Department of Corrections,653 S.E.2d 740 (Ga. 2007), the Georgia Supreme Court held that a state statute prohibiting registered sex offenders from living or working within 1,000 feet of any facility where minors congregate, see Ga. Code Åò42-1-15, constituted a taking of property as applied to a sex offender who...

City has a constitutional due process obligation to notify an owner that the owner's property has been adjudicated to be blighted and subject to condemnation

Colorado statutes create a procedure for designating property as blighted and subject to condemnation and transfer either to public use or transfer to another owner. While the statute required notice when the city begins studying whether the property is blighted and when a public hearing is held, it did not require notice of a decision that the property is in fact blighted. The Tenth Circuit found this to violate the due process clause because the...

Joseph William Singer

Bussey Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Takings

Supreme Court opens federal courts to a floodgate of takings cases

California beachfront owner temporarily denied power to place a gate limiting public access to the beach

No right to jury trial in regulatory takings case

Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states

Restrictive covenant held not to be "property" compensable under the takings clause

City takes property when it constructs a public park and invites the public to cross private property to access the park

Town can alter zoning law retroactively to prohibit Airbnb use

Town acquires prescriptive easement allowing public to use a road and abutting parcel

Is it an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation to require sex offenders to move away from their home if a school, playground, or daycare center is established near their home after their initial occupation?

City has a constitutional due process obligation to notify an owner that the owner's property has been adjudicated to be blighted and subject to condemnation

Categories

Takings

Subscribe to Blog