I.

Professor Wisemans law review article

A. Distinction
1. Violation of Due process
a. Govt may act arbitrarily
b. Govt action is simply invalid
c. AS! is t"e action substantially related to le#itimate #ovt purpose$
%. &a'in# for public use w(o )ust compensation
a. Govt may so intrusively re#ulate t"e use of property in pursuit of le#itimate police
power ob)ectives as to ta'e w(o compensation
b. Action is invalid w(o compensation
1* Govt may abandon its re#ulation
%* +, validate action by payin# )ust compensation -t"rou#" eminent domain*
c. AS! w"et"er a particular . ot"erwise le#itimate. e/ercise fo #ovt power constitutes a
ta'in# at all.
0. &est
1. Is t"e Govts end le#itimate$
a. 1o$ action is invalid 2 in)unction 3 4
b. 5es$ Go to %.
%. Is t"e means substantially related to t"e end$
a. 1o$ action is invalid
b. 5es$ Go to 6.
6. Does t"e means permanently -$$$* destroy an essential property ri#"t$
a. 5es$ Action is invalid w(o compensation
b. 1o$ #o to 7.
7. Does t"e value to t"e public of t"e end outwei#" t"e private "arm occasioned by t"e means$
-balance*
a. 1o$ action is invalid w(o compensation
b. 5es$ Action is valid as is.
8. 9ypot"esis Summari:ed
1. &est summari:ed
a. An ille#itimate end )ustifies no means
b. ;ven a le#itimate end )ustified only related means
c. 1o end )ustifies any uncompensated means w"ic" permanently destroys an essential
property ri#"t
d. &"en end ot"erwise )ustifies t"e means w"en t"e value to t"e public of t"e end outwei#"s
t"e private "arm resultin# from t"e means.
II. 9ypot"esis annotated
A. <iability p"ase
1. &"e rules of decision
a. An ille#itimate ;nd =ustifies 1o >eans
1* <e#itimate police powers ob)ectives are preservin# t"e public "ealt". safety. morals.
and #eneral welfare
a* If w(in t"e police power. t"en wit"in t"e public use
%* 8ourts role in reviewin# le#itimacy is an e/tremely narrow one ->id'iff*
6* Virtually any purpose pursued by a le#islature is le#itimate -eystone*
7* ,are case w"ere #ovt action is invalidated at t"is sta#e
a* &"ou#" #ovt may not. even wit" payin#. e/ceed t"ose limits
%. ;ven a <e#itimate ;nd =ustifies +nly ,elated >eans
a. In pursuit of le#itimate ends. #ovt must proceed rationally by usin# means related to t"e
end
b. ?ntil recently. could e/pect court to defer t"eir )ud#ement
c. ,ationally related(substantially related
d. ;uclid! if t"e validity of t"e le#islative classification for :onin# purposes be fairly
debatable. t"e le#islative )ud#ement must be allowed to control
1* &"us. if a plausible reason can be #iven for selectin# a particular means to ac"ieve a
le#itimate end. courts s"ould defer to le#islative intent
%* 0efore can be unconstitutional . must s"ow clearly arbitrary and unreasonable wit"
no substantial relation to police power
e. 1olan! essential ne/us between end and means
6. 1o ;nd =ustifies any ?ncompensated >eans W"ic" Permanently Destroys an ;ssential
Property ,i#"t
a. Some property ri#"ts are so essential t"at cant be ta'en wit"out compensation for any
reason
1* ;/clude. possess. use. alienate
%* <oretto! per se rule @@ any #ovt@aut"ori:ed permanent p"ysical invasion of private
property is a compensable ta'in#
a* Doesnt matter "ow trivial or w"at public interest served
b. &"e ri#"t to e/clude
1* P"ysical occupation more severe t"an re#ulation of use b(c owner "as no control
over timin#. e/tent. or nature of t"e invasion.
a* Permanent p"ysical occupation "as occurred w"ere individuals are #iven a
permanent and continuous ri#"t to pass on property -even t"ou#" no particular
individual*
%* Pruneyard! destruction of ri#"t to e/clude. w"ile still a ta'in#. may be so de minimus
as not to reAuire compensation
c. &"e ,i#"t &o ?se
1* >ust be a complete loss of use to be a ta'in#
%* <andowner may not complain t"at property is restricted to a use ot"er t"an t"at
w"ic" is most beneficial
6* &a'in# found w"en #ovt re#ulation pro"ibits all viable use of property
7* ;ssential to bundle to put property to some use
B* 1uisance! restrictin# a particular use 2 not a ta'in#
d. &"e ,i#"t to Dispose
1* Includes ri#"t to devise or descent
7. &"e ;nd +t"erwise =ustifies t"e >eans W"en t"e Value to t"e Public of t"e ;nd +utwei#"s
t"e Private 9arm +ccasioned by t"e >eans
a. Govt may destroy nonessential property ri#"ts w(o payment of compensation
1* ;specially if owner also benefited from re#ulation
%* Public nuisance ;/ception! -'eystone* ! #ovt may pro"ibit a use deemed by
le#islature to be in)urious to public "ealt". safety. morals. or #eneral welfare. if t"e
re#ulation does not permanently destroy an essential property ri#"t. -not a ta'in#*
6* 0ut if not no/ious use. must #o to balancin# test - sufficient interference wit"
owners ri#"ts. and insufficient public interest
7* 0alancin# test! re#ulatory ta'in# "as occurred w"en t"e balance of certain factors are
overw"elmin#ly in favor of t"e private interest
a* ;conomic impact on claimant
b* Interference wit" investment@bac'ed e/pectations
c* 8"aracter of t"e #overnmental action
d* ,eciprocity of advanta#e
B* If. on balance. a ta'in# occurred. #ovt can
a* Validate re#ulation by payment
b* ,escind t"e re#ulation
b. &emporary p"ysical occupation
1* Cirst ;n#lis"! a re#ulation w"ic" would ta'e property if permitted to remain in effect
permanently ta'es property even if in effect only temporarily.
a* Govt cant unta'e property ri#"ts simply by movin# out
%* w"et"er re#ulation would be permanent. but ruled invalidD very different Auestion
from w"et"er would be a ta'in# if allowed to continue indefinitely
a* temporary ta'in# s"ould be found only if temporarily destroys ri#"ts to e/clude.
use. A1D dispose.
b* Invalidation also affects balance 2 even if rendered wort"less for very s"ort
period of time. maybe no ta'in# if invalidation restores investment@bac'ed
e/pectations -would render "arm de minimis
B. Distin#uis"in# liability from ,emedy
a. <oretto! >ay find ta'in# wit" permanent p"ysical invasion. even t"ou#" no "arm 2 find
ta'in# at liability sta#e. but no "arm at remedy sta#e. &"ere. dont "ave to loo' at de#ree
of "arm to decide "arm because decided before t"e balancin# test.
b. 8ompare wit" Penn! #et all t"e way to balancin# sta#e. since re#ulatory. so "ave to
consider de#ree of "arm at t"e liability state 2 t"us. no ta'in# b(c "arm is so small. and
never even consider remedy.
c. &"e Auestion of liability is not driven by t"e de#ree of "arm suffered by a landowner
sub)ect to #ovt re#ulation. De#ree of "arm not even relevant until t"e balancin# state.
0. &"e ,emedy P"ase
1. Simple invalidity
a. Govt may not validate its arbitrary action by payin# for it
b. Dama#es! for deprivation of property in violation of due process! may include loss of
profit. loss of potential sales
%. Invalidity absent compensation
a. If #ovt continues. must pay )ust compensation