Case Law Flashcards
What is the holding from Juliana v. United States?
Individuals have a fundamental constitutional right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life. Accordingly, a claim that the federal government has affirmatively and substantially harmed that system in such a way that the system becomes unable to sustain human life is cognizable.
What is the holding from Matthews v. Bayhead Improvement Association?
Under the public-trust doctrine, private landowners must give the public reasonable access to both the foreshore and some dry sand.
Under Matthews v. Bayhead Improvement Association, what right does the public have to access private beaches?
The public is entitled to reasonable access to the foreshore. This is determined on a case by case basis using factors like
how much dry sand is already publicly available,
how close a dry-sand area is to the foreshore,
the nature and extent of the public demand for access, and
how a beach’s owner is using the dry-sand area.
In Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach, what doctrine was used?
The doctrine of custom.
What is the holding from Pierson v. Post?
Property in wild animals is acquired by occupancy, meaning at least mortally wounding or capturing from a distance, and at most physical possession. Mere pursuit of a wild animal does not vest property rights in the pursuer.
What was the holding from State v. Shack
The ownership of real property does not include the right to refuse access to individuals providing government services to workers who are housed on the property. Rights in real property are not absolute and are limited by the maintenance of the well-being of those people that the owner permits on his land.
What was the holding in Shelley v. Kramer?
State court enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant constitutes state action that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Are Racially Restrictive Covenants unconstitutional?
No! But enforcement of them by a court is unconstitutional. State court enforcement of racially restrictive covenants constitutes state action, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
What is the holding in Miller v. Schoene?
If a state is forced to make a choice between saving one of two types of property, the state does not violate the Due Process Clause by deciding upon the destruction of one class of property in order to save another which, in the legislature’s judgment, is more valuable to the public.
Giving preference to a public interest over the private interest of a property owner is a valid exercise of a state’s police power, even if the ultimate result is the destruction of the private property owner’s interest.
What is the holding in Kelo v. City of New London?
A state’s use of eminent domain to condemn property from private individuals and redistribute it to other private individuals constitutes a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment if it is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose.
What is the holding in Penn Central v. New York City?
In determining whether a state regulation constitutes a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, courts should consider
* the economic impact of the regulation on the owner,
* the extent to which the regulation has interfered with the owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations, and
* the character of the government action involved in the regulation.
What is the holding from Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council?
A state regulation that completely deprives private property of all its economic value constitutes a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that requires the payment of just compensation to the property owner, unless the economic activity prevented by the regulation is not part of the owner’s initial title or property rights when acquiring the property.
What is the holding from Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
(1) A landowner who acquires land after regulations take effect may still raise a regulatory-takings claim. (2) A takings claim must be ripe to be viable.
A landowner who acquires land after regulations take effect may still raise a regulatory-takings claim. The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, made applicable to states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without providing just compensation. A taking can be physical or regulatory. There are two types of regulatory takings. The first type arises if government regulations deny all economically beneficial or productive use of a property. The second type, known as a Penn Central taking, after Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), arises if government regulations do not deny all economically beneficial use but still impose unreasonably burdensome limitations on use. When assessing a Penn Central takings claim, courts consider the regulation’s economic impact on the landowner, the extent of interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the nature of the government action. A landowner who acquires land after regulations take effect can still raise a regulatory-takings claim. Unreasonably burdensome regulations do not become any less unreasonable or onerous simply because time passes or the property changes hands. To hold otherwise would allow states to put an expiration date on the Takings Clause’s restriction of their power. Also, when landowners sell their land, they are transferring their full rights to the new owners, including any right to challenge land-use regulations under the Takings Clause.
(2) A takings claim must be ripe to be viable. For both types of regulatory-takings claims, a claim is ripe only once the relevant state agency has issued a final decision regarding the application of regulations to the property. Because agencies often have broad discretion in applying land-use regulations, it is impossible for a court to evaluate regulations’ impact before a final decision about how the regulations will be applied.
What is the holding from Just v. Marinette County?
A landowner does not have an absolute and unlimited right to change the essential, natural character of the land to use it for an unsuitable and unnatural purpose that would injure the rights of others.
What is the holding from Esplanade v. Seattle?
A municipality’s deprivation of all beneficial use of a landowner’s property does not constitute a taking if the uses were already prohibited by state law. Under federal and state law, a plaintiff alleging a taking must make a showing of causation between the government action and alleged deprivation. A deprivation by the government of all beneficial uses of one’s property results in a taking unless state law would have already deprived the property owner of such uses.
