This article contends that the term “property” as used in the Takings Clause is a group of rights, the essential being the right to possess, the right to exclude others, the right to alienate, and most saliently, the right to beneficial use.
The Supreme Court ruled that Hennepin County’s actions violated the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, which bars the government from taking private property for public use without adequately compensating the property owner.
Recent changes in the law and the oil and gas industry both justify a reexamination of forced pooling on constitutional takings grounds. This Article will therefore take a fresh look at forced pooling schemes through the lens of modern takings jurisprudence.
Justices heard arguments in Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota to assess if taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause and if the forfeiture of property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt, plus interest, penalties, and costs, is a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.
This article argues that the accepted practice of requiring the consent of the landlord before replacing the lateral service line is at least questionable law and asserts that property rights are properly subject to limits that affect a landlord’s autonomy around the question of whether a lead service line should be replaced on her property.
Recently, in Clarke v. Fine Housing, Inc., 2023 WL 29046 (S.C. Jan. 4, 2023), the Supreme Court of South Carolina adopted the approach set forth in Restatement of the Law Third, Property (Servitudes) § 3.4 in determining whether a right of first refusal was an unreasonable restraint on alienation.
This article was originally published on SCOTUSblog.com on March 21, 2023. What water the United States owes the Navajo Nation under the 1868 Treaty of Bosque Redondo formed the crux of the argument in Arizona v. Navajo Nation.
Courts and commentators have yet to define the types of rights that are entitled to constitutional protection with sufficient precision to avoid an inconsistent and inefficient application of the Takings Clause. The Article assesses how certain frameworks perform with a property interest as elusive as appropriative water rights and provides broader lessons about both takings property and water law.
This chapter analyzes the status and promise of research about preservation laws, with the aim of inspiring additional inquiry.
This piece analyzes the specific ways in which modern property rules are transforming land into an asset class to be monetized, capitalized, and exploited.