Repeated adjustment of delegated powers and the history of eminent domain

International Review of Law and Economics

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 99-112

  Fleck, Robert K ^a   Hanssen, F Andrew ^b  

^a MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Health Services and Department of Biology   (United States)

Author keywords

Delegated powers; Eminent domain

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952889386     PISSN: 01448188     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2009.09.006     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Altshuler Alan, Luberoff David Mega-projects 2003, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
2. Anderson Martin The federal bulldozer. Urban renewal: The record and the controversy 1966, MIT Press, Cambridge. J.Q. Wilson (Ed.).
3. Auerbach A.J. Budget windows, sunsets, and fiscal control. Journal of Public Economics 2006, 90:87-100.
4. Ayres I., Balkin J.M. Legal entitlements as auctions: Property rules, liability rules, and beyond. Yale Law Journal 1997, 106:703-750.
5. Babler W.E. Eminent domain: Public housing and slum clearance as a 'Public Use'. Michigan Law Review 1937, 36:275-289.
6. Bakken G.M. Rocky Mountain constitution-making, 1850-1912 1987, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
7. Barro R.J. Recent developments in the theory of rules versus discretion. The Economic Journal 1986, 96:23-37.
8. Besley T.J., Coate S. Elected versus appointed regulators: Theory and evidence. Journal of the European Economic Association 2003, 1:1176-1206.
9. Burke, M. A. (2006). Much Ado about Nothing: Kelo v. City of New London, Sweet Home v. Babbit, and Other Tales from the Supreme Court. Working Paper. University of Houston Law Center.
10. Calabresi G., Melamed A.D. Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the cathedral. Harvard Law Review 1972, 85:1089-1128.
11. Cole, D. H. (2006). Why Kelo is Not Good News for Local Planners and Developers. Working Paper. Indianapolis: Indiana University School of Law.
12. Ely J.W. The guardian of every right 1992, Oxford University Press, New York.
13. Epstein R.A. Takings: Private property and the power of eminent domain 1985, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
14. Epstein R.A. A clear view of the cathedral: The dominance of property rules. Yale Law Journal 1997, 106:2091-2120.
15. Epstein L., Ho D.E., King G., Segal J.A. The Supreme Court during crisis: How war affects only non-war cases. New York University Law Review 2005, 80:1-116.
16. Fennell L.A. Taking eminent domain apart. Michigan State Law Review 2004, 957.
17. Fischel W.A. Regulatory takings 1995, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
18. Fischel, W. A. (2005). The political economy of public use in Poletown: How federal grants encourage excessive use of eminent domain. Working Paper. Dartmouth College.
19. Fleck R.K. When should market-supporting institutions be established?. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 2000, 16:129-154.
20. Frieden B., Sagalyn L. Downtown, Inc.: How America rebuilds cities 1989, MIT Press, Cambridge.
21. Gale W.G., Orszag P.R. Sunsets in the tax code. Tax Notes 2003, June 9, 1553-1561.
22. Gale W.G., Orszag P.R. Bush administration tax policy: Introduction and background. Tax Notes 2004, September 13, 1291-1300.
23. Gans H.J. The urban villagers: Group and class in the life of Italian-Americans 1982, Free Press, New York.
24. Garnett N.S. The neglected political economy of eminent domain. Michigan Law Review 2006, 105:101-150.
25. Greenhouse L. Justice weighs desire v. duty (duty prevails). New York Times 2005, August 25.
26. Groberg R.P. Urban renewal realistically appraised. Urban renewal: The record and the controversy 1966, MIT Press, Cambridge. J.Q. Wilson (Ed.).
27. Hahn R.W. State and federal regulatory reform: A comparative analysis. Journal of Legal Studies 2000, 29:873-912.
28. Hamm K.E., Robertson R.D. Factors influencing the adoption of new methods of legislative oversight in the U.S. States. Legislative Studies Quarterly 1981, 6:133-150.
29. Hanssen F.A. Appointed courts, elected courts, and public utility regulation: Judicial independence and the energy crisis. Business and Politics 1999, 1:179-201.
30. Hanssen F.A. Independent courts and administrative agencies: An empirical analysis of the states. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 2000, 16:534-571.
31. Hanssen F.A. Is there a politically optimal level of judicial independence?. American Economic Review 2004, 94:712-729.
32. Hanssen F.A. Learning about judicial independence: Institutional change in the state courts. Journal of Legal Studies 2004, 33:431-473.
33. Hart J.F. The Maryland Mill Act, 1669-1776: Economic policy and the confiscatory redistribution of private property. American Journal of Legal History 1995, 39:1-24.
34. Hart J.F. Takings and compensation in early America: The colonial highway acts in social context. American Journal of Legal History 1996, 40:253-306.
35. Hart J.F. Colonial land use and its significance for modern takings doctrine. Harvard Law Review 1996, 109:1252-1300.
36. Hart J.F. Property rights, costs, and welfare: Delaware water mill legislation. Journal of Legal Studies 1998, 27:455-471.
37. Hermalin B.E. An economic analysis of takings. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 1995, 11:64-86.
38. Horwitz M.J. The transformation of American law: 1780-1860 1977, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
39. Jacobs J. The death and life of great American cities 1961, Random House, New York.
40. Kaplow L. Rules versus standards: An economic analysis. Duke Law Journal 1992, 42:557-629.
41. Kelly D.B. The 'Public Use' requirement in eminent domain law: A rationale based on secret purchases and private influence. Cornell Law Review 2006, 92:1-66.
42. Kerner Commission. (1968). Report to the national advisory commission on civil disorders. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
43. Klerman D.M., Mahoney P.G. The value of judicial independence: Evidence from 18th century England. American Law and Economics Review 2005, 7:1-27.
44. Lewis G. Citizen participation in urban renewal surveyed. Journal of Housing 1959, 16:80-87.
45. Lewis J. A treatise on the law of eminent domain in the United States 1909, Callaghan and Company, Chicago.
46. Macey J.R. Organizational design and the political control of administrative agencies. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 1992, 8:93-110.
47. Maskin E., Tirole J. The politician and the judge: Accountability in government. American Economic Review 2004, 94:1034-1054.
48. Matsusaka J.G. Economics of direct legislation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1992, 107:541-571.
49. Matsusaka J.G. Direct democracy works. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2005, 19:185-206.
50. McCubbins M.D., Noll R.G., Weingast B.R. Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 1987, 3:243-277.
51. McCubbins M.D., Schwartz T. Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science 1984, 28:167-179.
52. Merrill T.W. The economics of public use. Cornell Law Review 1986, 72:61-116.
53. Milgrom P., Roberts J. Economics, organization, and management 1992, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
54. Moe T.M. The politics of bureaucratic structure. Can the government govern? 1989, Brookings, Washington, D.C. Chubb John, Paul Peterson (Eds.).
55. Mossoff A. The death of Poletown: The future of economic development after Wayne County v. Hathcock. Michigan State Law Review 2004, 837-844.
56. Munch P. An economic analysis of eminent domain. Journal of Political Economy 1976, 84:473-498.
57. Munneke H.J. Eminent domain: Lessons from the past. ORER Letter 1991, 5:1-4.
58. NBER State Constitutions Project. (2006). http://www.stateconstitutions.umd.edu/index.aspx.
59. Nichols P. The meaning of public use in the law of eminent domain. Boston University Law Review 1940, 20:615-641.
60. Nichols P. The law of eminent domain 1917, Matthew Bender & Company, Albany.
61. Nichols P. The law of eminent domain 1999, Matthew Bender & Company, Albany, (revised third edition, with Jules L. Sackman).
62. Polinsky M.A. Controlling externalities and protecting entitlements: Property right, liability, and tax subsidy approaches. Journal of Legal Studies 1979, 8:1-48.
63. Posner R.A. Economic analysis of law 1992, Little, Brown and Co., Boston.
64. Priest G.L. The common law process and the selection of efficient rules. Journal of Legal Studies 1977, 6:65-82.
65. Ramseyer J.M. The puzzling (in)dependence of courts: A comparative approach. Journal of Legal Studies 1994, 23:721-747.
66. Robinson, G. O. (2007). "The Property Rights of Despots" University of Virginia John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper Series. Working Paper 39.
67. Rubin P.H. Why is the common law efficient?. Journal of Legal Studies 1977, 6:51-63.
68. Scheiber H.N. The road to Munn: Eminent domain and the concept of public purpose in the state courts. Perspectives in American History 1971, 5:329-402.
69. Scheiber H.N. Property law, expropriation, and resource allocation by government: The United States, 1789-1910. Journal of Economic History 1973, 33:232-251.
70. Schelling T.C. The strategy of conflict 1960, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
71. Somin I. Overcoming Poletown: County of Wayne v. Hathcock, Economic Development, and the Future of Takings. Michigan State Law Review 2004, 1005-1039.
72. Stoebuck W.B. A general theory of eminent domain. Washington Law Review 1972, 47:553-608.
73. Stoebuck W.B. Nontresspassory takings in eminent domain 1977, The Miche Co., Charlottesville, VA.
74. U.S. Government Printing Office. (2001). Public law 107-56-October 26, 2001: Uniting and strengthening America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act) act of 2001.
75. Wilson J.Q. Planning and politics: Citizen participation in urban renewal. Urban renewal: The record and the controversy 1966, MIT Press, Cambridge. J.Q. Wilson (Ed.).
76. Wright G. The civil rights revolution as economic history. Journal of Economic History 1999, 59:267-289.